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 application filed on December 13, 2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and system Claim 11. Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
[an exchange system comprising a first processor; and]
[a first non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the first processor for performing operations comprising:]
receiving, [from an exchange rate computer,] a rate for exchange between a first value type and a second value type;
providing, [to a clearing and settlement system,] the rate or a derivative thereof;
receiving a trade sum [from the clearing and settlement system,] wherein the trade sum corresponds to an expected settlement amount for a plurality of transactions in which receivers in the transactions receive values of the second value type, wherein at least some of the transactions utilize the rate or the derivative thereof; and
transmitting, [to a correspondent entity computer,] an exchange request to exchange an amount of value from the first value type to the second value type, the amount of value based on the trade sum, wherein the [clearing and settlement system] initiates a transfer message to the [correspondent entity computer] to transfer the amount of value of the second value type to one or more [receiving entity computers] associated with [one or more receivers]; and
[the clearing and settlement system] in communication with [the exchange system].
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The first processor, computer-readable medium, exchange rate computer, clearing and settlement system, correspondent entity computer, receiving entity computers, and exchange system in Claim 15 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 and 11 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a first processor, a computer-readable medium, an exchange rate computer, a clearing and settlement system, a correspondent entity computer, receiving entity computers, and an exchange system. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 11, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 11, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Dependent claims 2 and 17 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 15 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The clearing and settlement system, hub computer, and correspondent entity computer in dependent claims 2 and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The hub computer, settlement agent computer, and correspondent entity computer of dependent claim 3 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The exchange system of dependent claim 4 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The clearing and settlement system and distributed authorization system of dependent claim 5 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 5 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The distributed authorization system and receiving entity computers of dependent claim 6 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The clearing and settlement system, hub computer, correspondent entity computer, sender entity computer, and receiver entity computer of dependent claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The hub computer, sender entity computer, receiver entity computer, the clearing and settlement system, and correspondent entity computer of dependent claim 8 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The clearing and settlement system, distributed authorization system, and receiving entity computers of dependent claim 9 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 9 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 10 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 11 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 12 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 11 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The corresponding entity computer of dependent claim 13 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 11 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The exchange rate computer of dependent claim 14 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 15 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The exchange rate computer of dependent claim 16 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 17 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The hub computer of dependent claim 18 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 18 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The hub computer, sender entity computer, and receiving entity computer of dependent claim 19 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim(s) 15 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The clearing and settlement system and distributed authorization system of dependent claim 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claim(s) 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles (US 2004/0167854) in view of Powell (US 2014/0006264).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 11, and 15:
Knowles teaches:
an exchange system comprising a first processor; and (Knowles: pgh 68, “Data processing represents one or more computer systems each with one or ore central processing units…”)
a first non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the first processor for performing operations comprising: (Knowles: pgh 97, “The computer system running scheduler includes…memory, hard disk drive, and interfaces to communicate with peripherals.”)
receiving, from an exchange rate computer, a rate for exchange between a first value type and a second value type; (Knowles: pgh 77, “Transaction processing center receives timely currency exchange rates from the financial markets.”)
receiving a trade sum from the clearing and settlement system, wherein the trade sum corresponds to an expected settlement amount for a plurality of transactions in which receivers in the transactions receive values of the second value type, wherein at least some of the transactions utilize the rate or the derivative thereof; and (Knowles: pgh 38, “During clearing and settlement, an aggregation of the individual purchase requests is processed through transaction processing system to fund previously approved transactions.”; pgh 76, “Transaction processing center provides flexibility as to how, when and by what exchange rate one currency is converted to another currency, and to whom fees are accessed for the currency conversion.”)
transmitting, to a correspondent entity computer, an exchange request to exchange an amount of value from the first value type to the second value type, the amount of value based on the trade sum, wherein the clearing and settlement system initiates a transfer message to the correspondent entity computer to transfer the amount of value of the second value type to one or more receiving entity computers associated with one or more receivers; and (Knowles: pgh 29, “Card association routes the transaction to issuing bank over communication link.; pgh 43, “A principal function of card association is to act as a funding clearing house for clearing and settlement.”; pgh 92, “…allow transaction processing center to control the currency conversion on the transaction…”)
Knowles does not teach, however, Powell teaches:
providing, to a clearing and settlement system, the rate or a derivative thereof; (Powell: pgh 3, “In a process known as clearing, transaction data is moved from the acquiring bank to the payment card network…to the issuer. After clearing, settlement occurs, which is a process used to exchange funds between the acquiring bank and the issuer…When the acquiring bank and the issuer are located in different countries or use different currencies, the currency where the merchant is located is used, and during settlement, the exchange rate on that particular day is used for the currency conversion.”)
the clearing and settlement system in communication with the exchange system. (Powell: pgh 78, “As part of its services, payment card network determines an exchange rate to apply…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Knowles to include the teachings of Powell to facilitate transactions that may result in a net gain or loss due to currency conversion (Powell: pgh 5).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 17:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15, respectively. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the clearing and settlement system comprises a second processor and a second non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the second processor to perform operations comprising: (Knowles: pgh 8, “A principal function of the card association is to act as a funding clearing house for the clearing and settlement process.”; pgh 28, “Card association includes well-known institutions identified by names such as Visa and MasterCard.”)
transmitting, by the clearing and settlement system, the transfer message to a hub computer, which transmits the transfer message to the correspondent entity computer. (Knowles: pgh 4, “The card association operates between the acquiring bank and issuing bank to coordinate and simplify the large number of transactions occurring on a daily basis.”; pgh 5, “The acquiring bank is electronically linked to the card association…”; pgh 47, “A first data processing channel is intended for message-based transactions…”)
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the transfer message is a first transfer message, and (Knowles: pgh 27, “In the present example, the transaction is routed to transaction processing center 30 over communication link 32.”; pgh 47, A first data processing channel is intended for message-based transactions, such as purchase authorization requests…”)
the method further comprises: transmitting, by the hub computer to a settlement agent computer, a second transfer message, wherein the second transfer message instructs the settlement agent computer to transfer a settlement value of the first value type to the correspondent entity computer. (Knowles: pgh 49, “The second portion of data transfer process…sends the properly formatted purchase authorization request to card association 34 by way of communication link 36.”)
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 12:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knowles further teaches:
receiving, by the exchange system, a plurality of rates per day, the rates for exchanges of one type of value to a different type of value. (Knowles: pgh 77, “Transaction processing center receives timely currency exchange rates from the financial markets.”)
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the clearing and settlement system receives data relating to the plurality of transactions from a distributed authorization system. (Knowles: pgh 52, “…the clearing and settlement transaction is typically a file-based transaction processed as a batch file of multiple transactions…”)
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the distributed authorization system receives transaction messages for the plurality of transactions and modifies the transaction messages with the rate or the derivative thereof, and transmits the modified transaction messages to receiving entity computers. (Knowles: pgh 58, “…acquiring bank may request a current quote on currency exchange rates being applied by transaction processing center.”; pgh 76, “Transaction processing center provides flexibility as to how, when and by what exchange rate one currency is converted to another currency, and to whom fees are accessed for the currency conversion.”)
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knowles further teaches:
wherein after the exchange request is submitted, the method further comprises: transmitting, by the clearing and settlement system, the transfer message to a hub computer, which transmits the transfer message to the correspondent entity computer, and (Knowles: pgh 54, “The clearing and settlement transaction is then routed through post authorization process where the request is formatted and any additional information added to the transaction as necessary for transfer to card association…Data transfer process 50b may send the properly formatted clearing and settlement transaction directly to issuing bank 14 by way of communication link 44.”)
wherein the hub computer receives a receiver transfer instruction message from a sender entity computer, the receiver transfer instruction message comprising details relating to a transfer of value of the second value type to a receiver account managed by a receiver entity computer using a value of the first value type from an account of a sender managed by the sender entity computer. (Knowles: pgh 55, “The response from issuing bank to the clearing and settlement transaction may be a wire transfer of funds of authorization for card association to debit the issuing bank’s account and forward funds to transaction processing center.”)
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knowles further teaches:
wherein a hub computer receives a receiver transfer instruction message from a sender entity computer, the receiver transfer instruction message comprising details relating to a transfer of value of the second value type to a receiver account managed by a receiver entity computer using a value of the first value type from an account of a sender managed by the sender entity computer, and wherein after the exchange request is submitted, the method further comprises: (Knowles: pgh 57, “Acquiring bank, issuing bank, and card association may send administrative transactions back and forth through transaction processing center.”)
transmitting, by the clearing and settlement system, the transfer message to the hub computer, which transmits the transfer message to the correspondent entity computer, the transfer message including the details relating to the transfer of value of the second value type to the receiver account. (Knowles: pgh 30, “Card association routes the response from issuing bank back through communication link to transaction center…”)
Regarding claim(s) 9:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the clearing and settlement system receives data relating to the plurality of transactions from a distributed authorization system, and (Knowles: pgh 52, “…the clearing and settlement transaction is typically a file-based transaction processed as a batch file of multiple transactions…”)
wherein the distributed authorization system receives transaction messages for the plurality of transactions and modifies the transaction messages with different rates, and transmits the modified transaction messages to receiving entity computers. (Knowles: pgh 58, “…acquiring bank may request a current quote on currency exchange rates being applied by transaction processing center.”; pgh 76, “Transaction processing center provides flexibility as to how, when and by what exchange rate one currency is converted to another currency, and to whom fees are accessed for the currency conversion.”)
Regarding claim(s) 10:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the different rates are determined based on attributes of the transaction messages. (Knowles: pgh 62, “Another example of message-based data processing is one that is controlled by the contents of the message such as a high priority request for currency exchange rates.”)
Regarding claim(s) 13:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting, to the corresponding entity computer, a plurality of exchange rate requests to exchange value of more than twenty different value types per day. (Knowles: pgh 58, “…acquiring bank may request a current quote on currency exchange rates being applied by transaction processing center.”)
Regarding claim(s) 14:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the exchange rate computer, a plurality of rates for exchanges between more than twenty types of value within a day. (Knowles: pgh 77, “Transaction processing center receives timely currency exchange rates from the financial markets.”)
Regarding claim(s) 16:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Knowles further teaches:
the exchange rate computer. (Knowles: pgh 58, “…acquiring bank may request a current quote on currency exchange rates being applied by transaction processing center…”)
Regarding claim(s) 18:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Knowles further teaches:
further comprising the hub computer. (Knowles: pgh 68, “Data processing may be one or more servers local to transaction processing center…”)
Regarding claim(s) 19:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 18. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the hub computer comprises a third processor and a third computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the third processor for performing operations comprising: receiving a receiver transfer instruction message from a sender entity computer, the receiver transfer instruction message comprising details relating to a transfer of value of the second value type to a receiver account managed by a receiving entity computer using a value of the first value type from an account of a sender managed by the sender entity computer. (Knowles: pgh 22, “Transaction processing system is a computer-based communication and transaction processing network…”; pgh 80, “If necessary, transaction processing center performs a currency conversion from request currency to transaction currency.”; pgh 32, “Transaction processing center operates on behalf of acquiring bank and merchant as an interface to card association.”)
Regarding claim(s) 20:
The combination of Knowles/Powell, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Knowles further teaches:
wherein the clearing and settlement system is programmed to receive data relating to the plurality of transactions from a distributed authorization system. (Knowles: pgh 52, “…the clearing and settlement transaction is typically a file-based transaction processed as a batch file of multiple transactions…”)
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Yan (US 2022/0292496) discloses systems and methods for domestic cross border blockchain transactions involving central bank digital currency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
March 27, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights