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 office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed December 29, 2025 in which claims 1, 9 and 18 are amended. Claim 21 has been added. Thus, 1-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 9 and 18.
The claims 1-8 and claim 21 are directed to a system, claims 9-17 are directed to a method
and 18-20 are directed to a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory medium, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : A system comprising at least one processor programmed or configured to: process a plurality of electronic payment transactions for a plurality of merchant systems arranged in the electronic payment processing network; generate a graph data structure comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges based on transaction data and external data, the transaction data comprising transaction parameters from each electronic payment transaction of the plurality of electronic payment transactions, the external data comprising information received from a system outside of the electronic payment processing network, the plurality of nodes representing at least two of the following: account holders, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network, acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, merchants, or any combination thereof; generate a node embedding for each node of the graph data structure by: converting the transaction data associated with the node to first text; converting the external data associated with the node to second text; and generating the node embedding based on the first text and the second text; determine that a merchant or group of merchants is associated with a negative settlement risk based on the graph data structure; determine whether to authorize an electronic payment transaction based on the negative settlement risk; and in response to determining to authorize the electronic payment transaction, automatically process the electronic payment transaction. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Fundamental economic principles or practices and/or Commercial or legal interactions. Authorization based on predicted settlement position is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 7). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 9 and 18 and hence the claims 9 and 18 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, Claim 18 also recites a non-transitory medium, which amounts to generic computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1 or 9 or 18 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 5 and 13 recite the additional element of a graph neural network. A graph neural network, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-21 are ineligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
3. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-21. While some individual features of claims 1-21 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-21. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
1) Bhattacharjee (US 2019/0172129 A1) – This invention relates generally to generation merchant analytics, and, more specifically, to network-based methods and systems for generating aggregated merchant valuation analytics and using those analytics to analyze merchant loan risk. The method also includes identifying, for each merchant, one sector in which the merchant is located. The method further includes generating aggregated merchant analytics for each sector based on the transaction data associated with all merchants in the sector.
2) Gilder (US 2013/0138563 A1) - This invention relates generally to electronic payment systems and methods, and more particularly, to prepaid merchant systems and methods. The new processing delivery system and method may limit or reduce the service operators risk exposure to a defined limit, thereby improving the service providers' ability to manage a known and quantifiable risk level per merchant while limiting the system implementer's total amount of risk and improving both the speed of underwriting and merchant approval process.
3) Rigby (US 2011/0087593 A1) – This invention relates generally to systems, apparatuses, and methods for the processing of payment transaction data, and more specifically, to the mapping of data between two data tracks used to represent cardholder and account data on credit cards, debit cards, and other types of payment devices. The invention provides an efficient way to implement a mapping service for payment transaction data and can be used to facilitate payment transactions in situations in which such transactions would otherwise not be possible. The inventive system may therefore provide consumers and issuers with the ability to perform payment transactions in situations in which they would otherwise be prevented from conducting those transactions.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed dated 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues that (pages 9-10), “the Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained in the 101 analysis above, the steps of the amended claim, when collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain methods of organizing Human activity such as Fundamental economic principles or practices and Commercial or legal interactions. Authorization based on predicted settlement position is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
6. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that (pages 9-10), The claims are also eligible under Step 2A, prong 2, for being directed to a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 7). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions.
A graph data structure is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
7. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2B, Applicant states that (pages 10-11), “The claims are also eligible under Step 2B of the Section 101 analysis.”
One of the guidelines issued by the Office to determine if the claims recite additional elements which are not well understood, routine or conventional and hence, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, is the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter).
According to the Berkheimer memo,
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The claim simply applies the abstract idea using generic computer elements as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements in the claim are a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network. As per the rejection above, the specification describes the additional elements of a processor, merchant systems, electronic payment processing network, nodes, issuer systems in the electronic payment processing network and acquirer systems in the electronic payment processing network to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 7). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
8. Applicant further states that (page 10-11), the present case is analogous to Desjardins.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and the claims in Desjardins. The invention in Desjardins improved the operation of the machine learning model. Hence, when considered as a whole, independent claim 1 integrated an abstract idea into a practical application. In Desjardins, “when evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation.” On the other hand, the instant claims does not even recite the machine learning model in any of the claims. Hence, Desjardins is not applicable.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, the rejection of pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is hereby maintained by the Examiner.
Examiner Request
9. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
March 16, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694