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 communication filed on July 22, 2025 in which claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “the lead credential”. Claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon, does not have any mention of “a lead credential”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “the customized rules”. Claim 1, which claim 11 depends upon, does not have any mention of “customized rules”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 12, 20 and 21.
The claims 1-11 are directed to a system, claims 12-19 are directed to a method and claims 20-21 are directed to a computer program product which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : at least one processor configured to: receive, from an acquirer system, an authorization request message associated with a transaction, the authorization request message comprising a first account identifier; determine that at least one of the transaction, the first account identifier, or any combination thereof qualifies for dynamic processing; identify at least one processing option available for the dynamic processing of the transaction; transmit a modified authorization request message to an issuer system, the modified authorization request message indicating the at least one processing option; receive an authorization response message from the issuer system, the authorization response message comprising an authorization indicator and an identifier for a funding source compatible with a selected processing option of the at least one processing option; and transmit a modified authorization response message based on the authorization indicator and the identifier for the funding source to the acquirer system. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), is a process that covers certain methods of organizing human activity such as a Commercial or legal interaction. Reviewing and modifying an authorization request associated with a transaction is a Commercial or legal interaction. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the recited additional elements (as shown above in italics), 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, an acquirer system and an issuer system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a processor, an acquirer system and an issuer system, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements 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, an acquirer system and an issuer system 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 amount to 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 analysis can he extended to other independent claims 12, 20 and 21 and hence the claims 12, 20 and 21 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claims 20 and 21 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium that amount to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations 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 2-11 and 13-19 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1 or 12.
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 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
4. 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) Bishnoi (US 2020/0234269 A1) – This invention relates generally to a payment card associated with multiple funding sources and, more particularly, to systems and methods for providing user selection among multiple funding sources via single swipe of a payment card. The system also includes a point-of-sale device having a payment card reader component. The point-of-sale device is configured to transmit a cold reset signal to the micromodule of the multiple-funding source payment card.
2) O’regan (US 2018/0108011 A1) – This invention relates to the distribution of credentials to a linked electronic wallet, specifically the linking of multiple electronic wallets to a single transaction account such that electronic transactions involving the linked account are funded by each of the linked electronic wallets.
3) Goldman (US 2014/0136353 A1) – The invention relates to systems and methods for optimizing usage of payment instruments in a payment transaction. More in particular, it relates to a system and method for optimizing card usage in a payment transaction. Payment instruments such as credit cards, debit cards and stored value cards are associated to the user's payment device in an intermediate account. The user also provides prioritization information regarding the payment instruments. Using the prioritization information, an optimization engine then determines the optimal payment instrument for a transaction transmitted to the intermediate account.
4) Al-Bedaiwi (US 2021/0326831 A1) – This invention relates generally to payment transactions involving multiple accounts conducted using a single payment device and further involving a system of automated reimbursements between those accounts.
Examiner Request
5. 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
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 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.
/BHAVIN D SHAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights