DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on April 09, 2026 for Application No. 18/902,376 filed on September 30, 2024 title: “Transaction System Transfer Techniques”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 were pending. By the 04/09/2026 Response, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, and 11 have been amended, new claims 15-18 have been added, and no claim has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 09/30/2024 and is a DIV of US Application No. 17/895,630 filed on 08/25/2022. For the purpose of examination, the date 08/25/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-6 and 15-18 recite a computer-implemented method comprising a series of steps, claims 7-14 recite a system comprising processing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored instructions. Therefore, the claims are directed to a process and machine which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating a phased migration of a set of transaction mediums from a first processing network to a second processing network, wherein a service of the first processing network that is unavailable during the phased migration is maintained by the second processing network; (data gathering due to commercial or legal interactions - business relations (e.g., merger, acquisition, change to operation structures of companies))
receiving, by a second processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a first processing network, the transaction information obtained via an acquirer from one or more transactions of the first type at a transaction facilitator, wherein a transaction medium of the set of transaction mediums that corresponds to the one or more transactions is determined by computing infrastructure of the first processing network to have a positive migration status indicating that the transaction medium has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and (commercial or legal interactions – business relations)
completing, by a second transaction system in the second processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type by:
monitoring the one or more transactions based on a set of criteria, the set of criteria comprising a predefined threshold corresponding to resource usage; (A method of organizing human activity)
based on determining that a subset of the one or more transactions fulfills at least one criteria of the set of criteria, blocking the subset of the one or more transactions; (A method of organizing human activity) and
allowing a remaining subset of the one or more transactions. (A method of organizing human activity)
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a first processing network, a second processing network, an acquirer, a transaction facilitator, a second transaction system). More specifically, the claim is directed to commercial or legal interactions including managing transaction transfer operations by completing the transactions of the first type by a second transaction system in the second processing network, and monitoring the transactions based on a set of criteria, blocking the subset of the transactions, and allowing a remaining subset of the transactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a commercial interaction, then they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 1 is addressed above, the analysis can be applied to claim 7 where the system comprising a processing device and computer-readable medium with stored instructions and similar elements and limitations also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere nominal recitation of generic computer components do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, this claim also recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating a phased migration of a set of transaction mediums from a first processing network to a second processing network, wherein a service of the first processing network that is unavailable during the phased migration is maintained by the second processing network;
receiving, by a second processing network, transaction information associated with one or more transactions of a first type from a first processing network, the transaction information obtained via an acquirer from one or more transactions of the first type at a transaction facilitator, wherein a transaction medium of the set of transaction mediums that corresponds to the one or more transactions is determined by computing infrastructure of the first processing network to have a positive migration status indicating that the transaction medium has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and
completing, by a second transaction system in the second processing network, the one or more transactions of the first type by:
monitoring the one or more transactions based on a set of criteria, the set of criteria comprising a predefined threshold corresponding to resource usage;
based on determining that a subset of the one or more transactions fulfills at least one criteria of the set of criteria, blocking the subset of the one or more transactions; and
allowing a remaining subset of the one or more transactions.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims (1 and 7) recite the additional elements (see underlined above) further narrow the scope of the claim, but do not change the analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis because a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The claims recite the additional computer elements of a first processing network, a second processing network, an acquirer, a transaction facilitator, a second transaction system. The additional computer elements all are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see at least in paragraphs 60-62 and Figure 7 of Publication No. 2025/0021975). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
The independent claims (1 and 7) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of receiving and sending information from and to a first processing network and a second processing network amount to no more than mere instructions to apply/implement the exception using generic computer systems. The Original Specification supports that [0024] “The first processing network 122 can include a first network core 128. The first network core 128 can include computing infrastructure to maintain card-level information, such as a current balance in a bank account associated with the debit card. The first network core 128 can receive transaction information from the first transaction system 124…” [0025] “… The second transaction system 116 can include a second network core 120. The second network core 120 can maintain transaction medium information for transaction mediums of the second type 110.” The Original Specification describes both networks at a high level of generality without specifying technical distinctions: [0044] “The first processing network can be a first banking system, and the second processing network can be a second banking system.” Figure 7 and paragraphs [0060-0063] describe the computing environment includes “a server, such as a cloud computing server … a processor 704 that can be communicatively coupled to the memory device 706 … Non-limiting examples of the processor 704 include a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a microprocessor, etc.”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on the generic computer system or merely use generic computer systems as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept or significantly more. Therefore the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-18 depend on claims 1 and 7, and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1 and 7.
Claim 2 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving, by the second processing network, one or more transactions of a second type from a transaction medium system, the transaction information obtained by the acquirer from the one or more transactions of the second type at the transaction facilitator; and completing, by the second transaction system, the one or more transactions of the second type, wherein completing the one or more transactions of the second type further comprise: processing, by a network core in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the second type to generate one or more authorization posts; and receiving, by a second deposit system in the second processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the second type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the second processing network, second transaction system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 3 and 11 include additional elements “wherein completing the one or more transactions of the first type further comprises: obtaining, by an enterprise data management module (EDM) in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type before being completed by the second transaction system; determining a transaction amount in the transaction information exceeds a user-selected limit; and canceling the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the enterprise data management module in the second processing network. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claims 4 and 10 include additional elements “wherein completing the one or more transactions of the first type further comprises: obtaining, by enterprise data management module (EDM) in the second processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type before being completed the second transaction system; determining the transaction facilitator is from a list of user-blocked merchants; and canceling the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the enterprise data management module. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 5 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving, by the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type from a transaction medium system; determining, based on the positive migration status, that the transaction medium associated with the one or more transactions of the first type has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and transferring, by the first processing network, the transaction information of the first type to the second transaction system in the second processing network.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the first processing network. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 6 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving, by the first processing network, the transaction information associated with the one or more transactions of the first type to generate one or more authorization posts; and receiving, by a first deposit system in the first processing network, the one or more authorization posts to complete the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the first processing network. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 8 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: receive, by the transaction medium system, transaction information of a second type from the acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions of the second type from the transaction facilitator; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information from the acquirer to the transaction system, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the second type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 9 includes additional elements “wherein the transaction system in the second processing network is a second transaction system, and wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: determine that the transaction medium of the first type has not migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information to a first transaction system in the first processing network, the first transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 12 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: transfer, by the transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from the acquirer to a second transaction medium system; and transfer, by the second transaction medium system, the transaction information of the first type from a first transaction medium system to the transaction system, the transaction system completing the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system and the second transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 13 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: receive, by the transaction medium system, transaction information from the acquirer, the transaction information associated with one or more transactions from a foreign transaction facilitator; generate, by the transaction medium system, one or more settlement files associated with the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator; and transfer, by the transaction medium system, the one or more settlement files to a network core in the first processing network, the network core processing the one or more settlement files to generate one or more central files to send to the second processing network for completion of the one or more transactions from the foreign transaction facilitator.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by the transaction medium system. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 14 includes additional elements “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: transmit, by a network core in the first processing network, one or more record files to a batched process in the second processing network, wherein the one or more transactions are completed during the batched process.” (Additional detailed instructions about the operations of the transaction by a network core in the first processing network. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 15 includes additional elements “wherein determining that the subset of the one or more transactions fulfills at least one criteria of the set of criteria further comprises: determining, based on an identifier included in the transaction information, that the transaction facilitator is included in a set of unauthorized providers, wherein the set of unauthorized providers is generated based on user input..” (Additional detailed instructions for determining that the subset of the transactions fulfills the criteria. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 16 includes additional elements “wherein completing the one or more transactions of the first type further comprises: receiving a set of settlement files generated using the transaction information, wherein the set of settlement files corresponds to the one or more transactions of the first type and one or more transactions of a second type; separating the set of settlement files based on a respective type; and transmitting, to a file system associated with the first processing network, a subset of the set of settlement files corresponding to the one or more transactions of the first type.” (Additional detailed instructions for completing the transactions of the first type. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 17 includes additional elements “wherein completing the one or more transactions of the first type further comprises, subsequent to allowing the remaining subset of the one or more transactions: generating one or more authorization posts corresponding to the remaining subset of the one or more transactions, wherein each authorization post of the one or more authorization posts comprises a temporary entry that is removed subsequent to batch processing.” (Additional detailed instructions for completing the transactions of the first type. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
Claim 18 includes additional elements “wherein the transaction information is received from the first processing network using an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) messaging protocol.” (Additional detailed instructions about the transaction information is received from the first processing network using ISO messaging protocol. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application or provide an inventive concept).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. These additional recited limitations further narrow the scope of the abstract idea and are merely insignificant solution activities which only refine the abstract idea further and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions have been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1 and 7 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of managing the operations of transaction transfer by determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network from the first processing network and monitoring to ensure the transactions of the first type is completed. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Thus, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. The claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem” for solving the transaction conversions problems due to a merger or an acquisition, or other suitable change to operation structures of companies, and this is substantiated by the Applicant’s Specification in paragraph 3.
[0003] Transaction conversions can be inefficient and inconvenient for a transaction user. The transaction conversions can occur because of a merger, an acquisition, or other suitable change to operation structures of companies. The transaction conversions may include deactivating a first transaction system and implementing a second transaction system. Doing so can impact transaction access for users of the transaction payment systems while the transaction conversion is implemented and can increase workloads for user support centers.
Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/09/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Application No. 17/895,630 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Per page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “initiating a phased migration from a first processing network to a second processing network” is not the same as or remotely similar to the hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk examples of the Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles subgrouping nor the agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations examples of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree. When determining whether a claim amounts to an abstract idea, the courts always breakdown the claim into the essential scope of the claim. In doing so, the courts do not recite specific details of what is recited in the claim(s) but focus on determining the overall abstract idea encompassed by the claim(s) as a whole. The courts also compare the overall abstract idea to previous court decisions. All of these court decisions do not label the abstract idea in a way that all of the claim elements are identified.
In the present case, as explained in the 101 analysis above, the amended independent claims (1 and 7) still recite an abstract concept of managing the transaction transfer operations by determining that the transaction medium has migrated to the second processing network from the first processing network and monitoring the transactions of the first type is completed. This is a Commercial Interaction because of the business relations due to transaction conversion because of a merger, an acquisition, or change to operation structures of companies. The transaction conversions may include deactivating a first transaction system and implementing a second transaction system. Doing so can impact transaction access for users of the transaction payment systems while the transaction conversion is implemented and can increase workloads for user support centers. Thus, the amended claims are directed to “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is substantiated by the Applicant’s Specification in paragraph 3. Therefore, the amended claims still recite a method of organizing human activity for managing transaction transfer operations, which is an abstract idea.
In addition, the newly added features (such as “initiating a phased migration …”, “wherein a transaction medium …”, “monitoring …”, “based on determining …”, and “allowing …”) have been carefully analyzed and determined that they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. The details of the analysis can be found in the 101 rejection above. The amended claims still are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Per pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant cites the Example 42 and argues that the amended claims are similar to the Example because the newly added limitations “initiating …” and “a transaction medium …” are the combination of features that allow for standardization with respect to how the transactions are processed regardless of the type of transaction received or the transaction medium used. Thus, similar to Example 42, the additional elements provide a specific improvement over conventional systems, thereby rendering the amended claims patent eligible.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 42 recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.
The Example is different than the amended claims, as explained in the analysis above, the focus of the amended claims is on a method of managing the operations of transaction transfer by determining a migration status of a transaction medium has migrated from the first processing network to the second processing network and monitoring to ensure the transactions of the first type is completed. The amended claims do not identify any feature for “standardization”, and Applicant’s Specification does not describe any “standardization” process or features at all. The Examiner used the key words such as “standard, standardize, standardizing, standardization” to search the Specification and did not identify any discussion. The amended claims neither converting a transaction medium from a first processing network to a second processing network nor standardizing a transaction medium to a standardized format. It should be noted that determining a migration status of a transaction medium has migrated from a first processing network to a second processing network is not the same as converting a transaction medium from a first processing network to a second processing network nor standardizing a transaction medium to a standardized format. Thus, there is no analogy between the amended claims and Example 42. The only similarity between the amended claims and Example 42 is that they all utilize computer technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. An updated prior art search did not identify any art(s), individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every claim elements at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights