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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on May 18, 2026.
• Claims 1, 5, 11, and 14 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 5, 15, and 20 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the drawing objections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and rather recite a computer-rooted process, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument is not convincing. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed invention allows for detecting anomalies in a batch of transactions in a clearing file and processing reversal transactions anomalous transactions. The Specification a at [0002] states: “The clearing phase is often operational, delayed, and outdated which presents integrity and logical loopholes. Uncertainty delays the clearing, which requires additional workload form the issuers and takes away from user experience. A tool to increase efficiency in the clearing process is needed.” The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the transaction clearing, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to 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 exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a processing network computer comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media comprising code executable by the one or more processors to perform a method; a transport computer; an authorizing entity computer operated by the authorizing entity; and an artificial intelligence model trained on historical clearing data such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002], stating: “The clearing phase is often operational, delayed, and outdated which presents integrity and logical loopholes. Uncertainty delays the clearing, which requires additional workload form the issuers and takes away from user experience. A tool to increase efficiency in the clearing process is needed.”
Applicant’s reliance upon DDR, on page 10, is misplaced. The claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in DDR, in which the inventive concept was in the modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display because Applicant’s claims here in the instant application do not address problems unique to the Internet or require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information. Rather, the pending claims are directed improving transaction clearing (see at least [0002] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., improving transaction clearing, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 that the claims speed up the correction process and relieve computer of handling reversal transactions and that the claims improve data processing speed and reduce the numbers of messages transmitted across the network which alleviate the computation burden of the claimed computers, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, it is noted, mere automation of a process, without improving a technical aspect of that process, does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a processing network computer comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media comprising code executable by the one or more processors to perform a method; a transport computer; an authorizing entity computer operated by the authorizing entity; and an artificial intelligence model trained on historical clearing data. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page that the Examiner has not established that claim elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the Examiner respectfully points out that the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). This consideration is different than the Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional Consideration –See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a method (claim 1) and an apparatus (claim 11). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1 and 11 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1 and 11 recite, in part, a method and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a method comprising: receiving a first clearing file comprising data for a plurality of transactions; determining an authorizing entity associated with one or more transactions from the first clearing file; transmitting, to the authorizing entity, a second clearing file including data for the one or more transactions; parsing the second clearing file to extract data elements comprising a unique transaction identifier and additional transaction data for each transaction; providing the data elements to a model, which outputs one or more duplicate profiling scores for the one or more transactions indicating a likelihood of a duplicate clearing based on the data elements; determining that the one or more transactions include one or more anomaly transactions based on at least one of the duplicate profiling scores exceeding a threshold; and initiating one or more transaction reversals with respect to the one or more anomaly transactions. The Specification at [0002] states: “The clearing phase is often operational, delayed, and outdated which presents integrity and logical loopholes. Uncertainty delays the clearing, which requires additional workload form the issuers and takes away from user experience. A tool to increase efficiency in the clearing process is needed.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for detecting anomalies in a batch of transactions in a clearing file and processing reversal transactions anomalous transactions, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a network processing computer, transport computer, and authorizing entity computer do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a processing network computer comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media comprising code executable by the one or more processors to perform a method; a transport computer; an authorizing entity computer operated by the authorizing entity; and an artificial intelligence model trained on historical clearing data are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving a clearing file of a plurality of transactions, dete4rmining an authorizing entity, transmitting a second file including transactions, determining the transactions include anomaly transactions, and initiating reversals of the anomaly transactions) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the 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.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-4, 9-10, 12-13, 17-19 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 6-8, 14, and 16 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130110724 A1 (“Edwards”) discloses in a method of determining if a check being presented for settlement is a duplicate, a request is received to convert a check made to a payee to funds. A query is performed on a check processing database to retrieve information about the check indicating whether a query has already been performed on the check processing database for the check when the check had been presented for settlement. In response to determining that a query for the check had previously been performed on the check processing database, an indication is provided.
US 20130013491 A1 (“Selway”) discloses reducing fraud by detecting duplicate financial transactions in a financial transaction processing system. In various embodiments, financial institutions can be alerted when a financial instrument such as a check is being tendered for deposit, wherein a previous deposit for that same instrument had previously been submitted at the same or a different financial institution. The system and method provide for detection of deposits of checks after remote deposit of the same check had been previously performed (for example by submitting a digital image of the check). Deposit of duplicate counterfeit paper checks issued to multiple parties can also be detected and mitigated.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights