DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to amendment filed 9/25/2026.
2. Claims 52-71 are pending.
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 .
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 52-71
Claims 52-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 52-58 are directed to a method; claims 59-65 are directed to a system; claims 66-71 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
The limitations of the independent claims 52, 59 and 66 –
method for repairing an [electronic] payment transaction in a real-time payments system, comprising:
receiving the electronic payment transaction;
examining contents of the electronic payment transaction, wherein the contents of the electronic payment transaction includes a transaction type;
examining metadata associated with the [electronic] payment transaction, wherein the metadata includes a payment rail preference;
repairing the [electronic] payment transaction by:
examining an error code associated with the [electronic] payment transaction; and
performing a repair operation on the [electronic] payment transaction based on the error code, wherein the repair operation is performed by a repair component comprising a [trained machine learning model] that automatically edits at least one of one or more elements of the contents of the electronic payment transaction and one or more metadata elements associated with the electronic payment transaction to enable the electronic payment transaction to be completed;
re-evaluating the repaired [electronic] payment transaction to determine whether the repaired electronic payment transaction is in a valid message format; and
routing the repaired [electronic] payment transaction to the payment rail for processing, wherein, when the error code indicates that the electronic payment transaction cannot be completed over a real-time payment rail corresponding to the payment rail preference, the repaired electronic payment transaction is automatically reformatted into a format of a second payment rail different from the real-time payment rail and is routed to the second payment rail for processing in place of rejecting the electronic payment transaction
– fall under the abstract idea groupings Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The limitations of the dependent claims –
Claims 53, 60, 67: wherein the repair operation includes retrying to post the electronic payment transaction at a later point in time.
Claims 54, 61, 68: wherein the repair operation includes editing one or more elements of the contents of the electronic payment transaction.
Claims 55, 62, 69: wherein the repair operation includes editing one or more elements of the metadata associated with the electronic payment transaction.
Claims 56, 63, 70: wherein the repair operation includes sending the electronic payment transaction to a data enrichment component for repair.
Claims 57, 64: wherein the data enrichment component is configured to edit one or more elements of the contents of the electronic payment transaction.
Claims 58, 65: wherein the data enrichment component is configured to edit one or more elements of the metadata associated with the electronic payment transaction.
Claim 71: wherein the data enrichment component is configured to; edit one or more elements of the contents of the payment transaction; or edit one or more elements of the metadata associated with the electronic payment transaction.
– also fall under the abstract idea categories Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 52-71 recite a combination of judicial exceptions.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
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 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)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a system comprising processor and memory; non-transitory computer-readable medium; trained machine learning model. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – a method for repairing an electronic payment transaction in a real-time payments system, comprising:
receiving the electronic payment transaction;
examining contents of the electronic payment transaction, wherein the contents of the electronic payment transaction includes a transaction type;
examining metadata associated with the electronic payment transaction, wherein the metadata includes a payment rail preference;
repairing the electronic payment transaction by:
examining an error code associated with the electronic payment transaction; and
performing a repair operation on the electronic payment transaction based on the error code, wherein the repair operation is performed by a repair component comprising a trained machine learning model that automatically edits at least one of one or more elements of the contents of the electronic payment transaction and one or more metadata elements associated with the electronic payment transaction to enable the electronic payment transaction to be completed;
re-evaluating the repaired electronic payment transaction to determine whether the repaired electronic payment transaction is in a valid message format; and
routing the repaired electronic payment transaction to the payment rail for processing, wherein, when the error code indicates that the electronic payment transaction cannot be completed over a real-time payment rail corresponding to the payment rail preference, the repaired electronic payment transaction is automatically reformatted into a format of a second payment rail different from the real-time payment rail and is routed to the second payment rail for processing in place of rejecting the electronic payment transaction – that merely uses generic computer components as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – a method for repairing an electronic payment transaction in a real-time payments system, comprising:
receiving the electronic payment transaction;
examining contents of the electronic payment transaction, wherein the contents of the electronic payment transaction includes a transaction type;
examining metadata associated with the electronic payment transaction, wherein the metadata includes a payment rail preference;
repairing the electronic payment transaction by:
examining an error code associated with the electronic payment transaction; and
performing a repair operation on the electronic payment transaction based on the error code, wherein the repair operation is performed by a repair component comprising a trained machine learning model that automatically edits at least one of one or more elements of the contents of the electronic payment transaction and one or more metadata elements associated with the electronic payment transaction to enable the electronic payment transaction to be completed;
re-evaluating the repaired electronic payment transaction to determine whether the repaired electronic payment transaction is in a valid message format; and
routing the repaired electronic payment transaction to the payment rail for processing, wherein, when the error code indicates that the electronic payment transaction cannot be completed over a real-time payment rail corresponding to the payment rail preference, the repaired electronic payment transaction is automatically reformatted into a format of a second payment rail different from the real-time payment rail and is routed to the second payment rail for processing in place of rejecting the electronic payment transaction – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that, when considered as a whole, the amended claim 52 cannot be practically performed in the mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner first points out that the independent claims have been rejected as a combination of both Mental Process as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the limitations receiving an electronic payment transaction, examining the contents of the electronic payment transactions (e.g. transaction type), examining metadata, examining error code, re-evaluating repaired electronic payment transaction to determine whether it is in a valid message format – require observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion and hence fall under the Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas. The applicant offers no persuasive explanation as to why an analyst cannot carry out any of the above steps by simply looking at an electronic display, making mental evaluation, judgement or opinion and determining whether a repaired payment transaction is in valid format.
Similarly, the Applicant’s argument that there are no manual counterparts to reformatting an electronic payment message into the format of a second payment rails and re-routing it within a real-time payment system – is unpersuasive because a human operator can make carry out format correction on a computer and submit the transaction to a real-time payment rail. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III. MENTAL PROCESSES C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Moreover, neither the claims nor the specification identifies what such “automatically edits” or “automatically reformatting” functions entail. No examples of editing or reformatting function have been cited in the specification or the claims. Examiner notes that an ordinary artisan would know that a editing correction such as supplying missing character, missing data, character substitution, inserting fields or data, etc., can be easily typed in manually on a computer using a keyboard. Merely automating such human clerical operations is not a ticket to patent eligibility. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.”) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
With regard to the limitation pertaining to performing a repair operation by a trained machine learning model, Examiner notes that this step merely uses machine learning as a tool to edit one or more elements of the contents and metadata of the electronic payment transaction – which again involves nothing more than using the Mental Process of observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion – to enable the electronic payment transaction to be completed – which is a Commercial/Legal Interaction. In other words, machine learning is merely being used as a black box to carry out the abstract idea(s) Mental Process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which does not elevate the abstract idea(s) to patent eligible status. The Federal Circuit has held that using machine learning methods to former human activities is not patent eligible. See Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“[T]he claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. We have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity.”).
The limitation “routing … for processing … the electronic payment transaction,” Examiner notes that routing and processing payment transaction is a Commercial/Legal Interaction that falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. With regard to the limitation “the repaired electronic payment transaction is automatically formatted into a format of the second payment rail different from the real-time payment rail,” Examiner notes that the limitation “automatically reformatted into a format of a second payment rail different from the real-time payment rail” has been recited at a very high level of generality that provides no details what such reformatting entails. The “automatically reformatted” limitation is so overbroad and all-encompassing that it practically amounts to claiming the result of reformatting a payment transaction without providing any details that confines the claim to a particular solution to a problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.”). See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”).
Applicant attempts to analogize the pending claims to Example 47 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
Applicant analogizes the invention to Example 47 Claim 3 of the 2024 Guidance Updated on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. However, Examiner finds the analogy to be inapt. Claim 3 of Example 47 recites the steps of training an ANN with backpropagation and gradient descent, detecting network anomalies with the trained ANN, determining malicious network associated with the anomaly, dropping the malicious packet and blocking future traffic from the source address associated with the malicious packet. As the Guidance states – these steps reflect the improvements described in the background such as avoiding the delay involved in waiting on a network administrator to react to a network intrusion by automatically dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses based on anomalies identified by the ANN in real time. But the present invention is not similar to identifying malicious packets in real time. Training an unspecified trained machine learning model to automatically edit one or more elements and metadata of an electronic payment transaction to enable a payment transaction to be completed – is merely facilitating Commercial/Legal Interactions and not comparable to detecting network anomaly in real-time. There is no parallelism between detecting malicious packets and editing payment transaction elements. While the former is an improvement to network security at the network level, the latter is, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of payment processing.
Applicant asserts that amended claim 52 recites a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement under Step 2B and also complains that the office action has not identified claims elements as well-understood, routine and conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner points out that “well-understood, routine or conventional” (WURC) analysis applies to the additional elements and not to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (“Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.”). Here, the additional elements beyond the abstract idea – real-time payments system; processor and memory; non-transitory computer readable medium; trained machine learning model – have been described in the specification at a high level of generality. For example, as per para [0200] of the published application, computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks. As per para [0089], the machine learning model may be a neural network model and trained on patterns of transactions, for example, common beneficiaries, fraud patterns (e.g., a pattern of many transactions over a limit which are posted to the same account), or transactions which are rejected in common ways (e.g., high dollar transactions in and out). Examiner thus notes that the high-level description of the additional elements clearly establishes that they are generic computer components. There is nothing in the specification and nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components and generic machine learning models to perform generic computer functions, e.g., receiving, examining, repairing, performing, re-evaluating, and routing of payment transactions. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”).
To the extent that the applicant contends that the claims describe an unconventional process, this merely applies to the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(a) (“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”). But for the additional elements – real-time payments system; processor and memory; non-transitory computer readable medium; trained machine learning model – each of the limitations of the independent claims recites a combination of abstract ideas and therefore, the WURC analysis does not apply to them. See also Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093 (“The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, ‘no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”).
For the above reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Previously Addressed
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because the claims merely recite a combination of abstract ideas which is not sufficient to integrate into a practical application. Examining the contents of a payment transaction, examining transaction metadata, examining error code – involve observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion and hence fall under the Mental Process category of abstract ideas. Performing repair operation on a payment transaction and routing to payment rail for processing – is a Commercial/Legal Interaction and hence falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements merely implement the aforementioned combination of abstract ideas on generic components. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.”) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”). Unlike BASCOM, the claims do not perform technical improvements such as local packet filtering that were unconventional in the art at the time of the invention.
An ordered combination of the claimed steps does not bring about (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited combination of abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
103
The previous obviousness rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments and arguments filed 9/25/2026.
Conclusion
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 ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
