DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 6/6/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections are stated below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 8 is directed to a device and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for payment processing based on transaction requirements, which is a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, stripped of all additional elements and in bold below, recite the abstract idea as follows:
1. A method for multi-cloud modular payment processing, comprising:
receiving a payment processing request;
analyzing the payment processing request for transaction requirements, wherein the transaction requirements comprise geographic location of the payment request;
determining multi-cloud routing based on transaction requirements for directing payment transactions to at least one cloud platform for payment processing;
communicating with an external system for verifying payment; and
sending a payment verified message.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “multi-cloud”, “at least one cloud platform” and “an external system” in claim 1, and “one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors,”, “multi-cloud”, “at least one cloud platform” and “an external system” in claim 8, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of programs for execution by a computing device having one or more processors”, “multi-cloud”, “at least one cloud platform” and “an external system” in claim 15, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea as do claims 8 and 15.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processor suitably programmed with blockchain technology communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of receiving, analyzing, determining, communicating and sending. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs [0031], “The payment system 10 includes a computing unit 12, which can be a user’s smartphone, tablet, or computer, running a payment application that allows customers to initiate and manage payment transactions.” and “It interfaces with external systems 16, which may include payment gateways, banking networks, and other financial institutions, to complete the payment process.”. Also see paragraphs [0059-0064] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea as are claims 8 and 15.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of payment processing based on transaction requirements, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2, 9 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by defining the transaction requirements with nothing more. Claims 3, 10 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by routing the payment request to relevant services. This is applying the abstract idea in a generic computing platform. There are no technical implementation details such that this could be performed in a myriad of ways. Claims 4, 11 and 18 further refines the abstract by reciting the limitations of validating a card and authorizing a transaction claimed at a very high level of generality such this can use any known generic system or even human mental processes to complete. Claims 5, 12 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by claiming converting a payment protocol which according to the specification in at least paragraph [0028] can be any known parsing, extracting and mapping of data fields in various messages. There are no technical implementation details such that this is merely applying the abstract idea on a suitably programmed generic processor. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are claimed at a very high level of generality such that a human being could perform load balancing through interacting with a computer and determine a current load but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for payment processing based on transaction requirements) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for payment processing based on transaction requirements) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koren et al. (US 2022/0327504 Al)(Koren hereinafter) in view of Levy et al.(US 2019/0340589 A1)(Levy hereinafter)
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15: Koren discloses a method, device and non-transitory computer- readable medium (see at least Abstract and [0105]) for multi-cloud modular payment processing, comprising:
receiving a payment processing request; (at least FIG. 2, element 202
analyzing the payment processing request for transaction requirements, wherein the transaction requirements comprise geographic location of the payment request; determining multi-cloud routing based on transaction requirements for directing payment transactions to at least one cloud platform for payment processing; (at least [0003], “…the optimal routing can be based on a unique set of circumstances for each transaction……. machine learning models accept payment processing information and circumstance (e.g., any one or more or any combination of….. store location….. any location information, among a host of other options)…”, at least [0004], at least [0045], at least [0049], “…process 200 continues which capture of payment information, including all the details associated with the transactions ( e.g., originating location and/or IP address, merchant locations…”).
Although Koren discloses the above features, it appears that Koren does not explicitly disclose, however, Levy discloses,
communicating with an external system for verifying payment; and sending a payment verified message, (at least [0158], “…to route at least one communication between the source node and the destination node via the selected optimal routing path, including for example: a funds transfer message from the source node to the destination node, and a payment confirmation message from the destination node back to the source node.”, at least [0196], “…a user may want to perform an ME transaction that may incur minimal currency conversion costs and where the transaction's service time (e.g., the period between sending an order to transfer funds and receiving a confirmation of payment) would be minimal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the automatic transaction routing and execution system of Koren the ability to receive a confirmation message verifying payment completion as disclosed by Levy since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and, in combination, each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the features disclosed by Levy, to the known invention of Koren, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. The motivation to combine is that confirming and verifying the completion of a transaction request provides the payor a receipt that the transaction was completed properly. This is also an age old economic practice for completing a sale.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16: Koren in view of Levy further disclose, wherein:
the transaction requirements comprise regulatory requirements, performance metrics, and cost considerations for the payment processing request, (Koren: at least [0062], “…to predict for each of the processing entities what rules apply for evaluation of a transaction and how the system can ensure compliance with them, for example, by applying routing policies that comply with the predicted rules.”, at least [0077]; Levy: at least [0017]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17: Koren in view of Levy further disclose,
further comprising directing the payment processing request to relevant services within the at least one cloud platform, wherein the relevant services are hosted in different cloud platforms, (Levy: at least [0095], “Routing algorithms known in the art are normally configured to select a routing path according to a predefined set, consisting a handful of preselected parameters (e.g. a source node address, a destination node address, a type of a service and a desired Quality-of-Service (QoS)).”).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18: Koren in view of Levy further disclose,
further comprising managing the payment processing request, wherein payment processing request includes validating a card and authorizing a transaction, (Levy: at least [0107], “..requests to translate the token to a paying-card number, and then forwards the number to acquirer 202-c, to authorize payment.”).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19: Koren in view of Levy further disclose,
further comprising converting a payment protocol translation for facilitating communication between financial institutions or payment methods, (Levy: at least [0122], ‘“…routes for communicating the requested transaction in accordance with available resources of computer network 210 (e.g. by any dynamic routing protocol such as a "next-hop" forwarding protocol, as known to persons skilled in the art of computer networks);”’, at least [0158]).
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koren et al. (US 2022/0327504 Al)(Koren hereinafter) in view of Levy et al.(US 2019/0340589 A1)(Levy hereinafter) and further in view of Rephlo (US 11,829,986 B2)
Although Koren in view of Levy discloses the above features and (Levy: [0267], “This selection may provide a route that may have technical merits such as a minimal routing time and an optimal load balance among nodes of the network.”, it appears that Koren in view of Levy does not explicitly disclose, however, Rephlo discloses,
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20: further comprising
performing load balancing for distributing traffic efficiently across multiple instances and cloud providers, (at least col.7, lines 63-67, “Load balancer(s) 308 may distribute workloads across multiple computing resources,…” and col.8, lines 1-10, “Load balancing aims to optimize resource use, maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of any one of the resources.” and lines 25-33, “Load balancers 308 also may account for additional factors, such as a server's reported load, recent response times, up/down status (determined by a monitoring poll of some kind), number of active connections, geographic location, capabilities, or how much traffic it has recently been assigned.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the automatic transaction routing and execution system of Koren and the optimizing routing of transactions over a computer network system of Levy the ability to load balance payment routing data as disclosed by Rephlo since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and, in combination, each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the features disclosed by Rephlo, to the combination of disclosures of Koren and Levy, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. The motivation to combine is that load balancing is a well-known computing technique that “aims to optimize resource use, maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of any one of the resources”.
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Koren in view of Levy and further in view of Rephlo further discloses
further comprising: determining a current load of an available cloud platform,(Rephlo: at least col.8, lines 25-33, “Load balancers 308 also may account for additional factors, such as a server's reported load, recent response times, up/down status (determined by a monitoring poll of some kind), number of active connections, geographic location, capabilities, or how much traffic it has recently been assigned.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights