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
Claims 1-20, as originally filed 07/03/2025, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 8, and 15 being independent). The applicant’s claim for a benefit of a CON of 18/101,708 which has been issued and the filing date of 01/26/2023 has been acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney, US Publication Number 2017/0331724 A1 in view of Miller et al. (hereinafter Miller), US Publication Number 2022/0058726 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Carney discloses the following:
A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and (see Carney, at least [0022] discloses “computing device 200 generally includes a processor 202, and a memory 204 coupled to (an in communication with) the processor 202”)
a global transaction router configured to route payment requests between network hubs and hosted by a first supernetwork instance, the global transaction router comprising machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: (see Carney, at least [0010] discloses “The payment networks and methods herein provide network traffic routing between multiple paths (or routes), supported by multiple networks disposed between global hubs, regional hubs, and regional branches, so that traffic is shifted between different paths to a preferred path”)
identify an optimal route from the source network hub to a destination network hub; and (see Carney, at least [0028] discloses “the routing engine 122 is configured to determine a preferred path, in part, based on published specificity values. The routing engine 122 is configured to then select and/or switch between different paths 114, 116, and 118 for the transfer of data between branch 108 and hubs 104 and 106, for example, based on the preferred path, etc. ... routing engine 122 may also be configured for use by a regional hub to determine preferred paths of communication to a global hub, regional branch, and/or another regional hub and by a global hub to determine preferred paths of communication to a regional hub, regional branch, and/or another global hub.”)
Carney does not explicitly disclose the following, however Miller further teaches:
receive a payment request from a source network hub connected to a first participant system within a first payment network and connected to the first supernetwork instance; (see Miller, at lease [0027] discloses “At operation 2010 a computing device of the bank receives a payment request including desired payment properties. This request may be received through a GUI provided to a customer's computer over a network, from a physical bank branch, or the like.”)
cause the payment request to be provided to the destination network hub using the optimal route, the destination network hub being connected to a second participant system within a second payment network. (see Miller, at lease [0032] discloses “the route matching and selection service may calculate (based upon the graph created) the possible routes between the source and destination. At operation 4030 the optimal payment routes may be computed as previously described. At operation 4040 these payment routes may be sent to the bank that sent the payment request.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method that includes determining a subset of network routers that offer access to a regional hub based on network address summaries for first and second routers and prioritizing the first router over the second router, based on a specificity value of each of the first and second routers of Carney to include matching the desired payment properties of the payment request based upon the offered payment properties, as taught by Miller, in order to provide an optimal route for the payment. (Miller: See paragraphs [0011-0012])
Regarding claim 2:
Carney does not explicitly disclose the following, however Miller further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the payment request further comprises an identifier for a recipient institution, and the destination network hub is associated with the recipient institution. (see Miller, at lease [0044] discloses “The route matching and selection service may then inform banks in the selected route. Each payment request may have or be assigned a unique identifier by the route matching and selection service. The payment may then include this unique identifier. This identifier may be used by banks to match their bids with the actual payments as they are received by the banks.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method that includes determining a subset of network routers that offer access to a regional hub based on network address summaries for first and second routers and prioritizing the first router over the second router, based on a specificity value of each of the first and second routers of Carney to include matching the desired payment properties of the payment request based upon the offered payment properties, as taught by Miller, in order to provide an optimal route for the payment. (Miller: See paragraphs [0011-0012])
Regarding claim 3:
Carney does not explicitly disclose the following, however Miller further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the payment request comprises a plurality of routing preferences, and the global transaction router further causes the computing device to identify the optimal route based at least in part on the plurality of routing preferences. (see Miller, at lease [0032] discloses “the route matching and selection service may calculate (based upon the graph created) the possible routes between the source and destination. Each bank in the route may be sent a notification or may have a bid calculated depending on their preferences for legs they are involved in. At operation 4030 the optimal payment routes may be computed as previously described. At operation 4040 these payment routes may be sent to the bank that sent the payment request.”, and see also [0018])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method that includes determining a subset of network routers that offer access to a regional hub based on network address summaries for first and second routers and prioritizing the first router over the second router, based on a specificity value of each of the first and second routers of Carney to include matching the desired payment properties of the payment request based upon the offered payment properties, as taught by Miller, in order to provide an optimal route for the payment. (Miller: See paragraphs [0011-0012])
Regarding claim 4:
Carney does not explicitly disclose the following, however Miller further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of routing preferences comprises a speed of a payment, a cost of the payment, a reliability of the payment, a timing of the payment, a cutoff time for the payment, a sponsored offer association with the payment, and an option to batch the payment with a plurality of other payments. (see Miller, at lease [0018] discloses “payment cost may be used as the distance metric and edge weights may reflect the payment cost. The pathfinding algorithm may find the lowest cost payment route by calculating the path with the minimum aggregate of the edge weights for the path. In another example, speed of payment may be used as distance and the algorithm may find the fastest payment route. the distance metric may be calculated based upon multiple payment properties. For example two or more of: cost, speed, a settlement details score, currency score, and a payment type score may be inputs to a weighted summation algorithm that produces a distance metric for each edge.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method that includes determining a subset of network routers that offer access to a regional hub based on network address summaries for first and second routers and prioritizing the first router over the second router, based on a specificity value of each of the first and second routers of Carney to include matching the desired payment properties of the payment request based upon the offered payment properties, as taught by Miller, in order to provide an optimal route for the payment. (Miller: See paragraphs [0011-0012])
Regarding claim 5:
Carney discloses the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the global transaction router is a first global transaction router, and causing the computing device to cause the payment request to be provided to the destination network hub further causes the computing device to at least send the payment request to a second global transaction router hosted by a second supernetwork instance connected to the destination network hub. (see Carney, at least [0056] discloses “(a) determining a subset of network routers that offer access to the regional hub based on network address summaries for the first and second routers; (b) prioritizing the first router over the second router, based on a specificity value of each of the first and second routers, as defined by the network address summaries”)
Regarding claim 6:
Carney discloses the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the global transaction router causing the computing device to cause the payment request to be provided to the destination network hub further causes the computing device to at least send the payment request to the destination network hub. (see Carney, at least [0050] discloses “the routing engine 122 may check paths to the router 120h of global hub 104 through the Internet network 112 or to routers 120e and 120/ of global hub 102 through one of the networks 110 and 112. The order of these checks would be prioritized as described above, according to the specificity of the path to the destination router at the regional branch 108.”)
Regarding claims 8 and 15: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 9 and 16: it is similar scope to claim 2, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 10 and 17: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 11 and 18: it is similar scope to claim 14 and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 12 and 19: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13: it is similar scope to claim 6, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carney in view of Miller in further view of Johnston et al. (hereinafter Johnston), US Publication Number 2021/0182810 A1.
Regarding claim 7:
Carney and Miller do not explicitly disclose the following, however Johnston further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the global transaction router causing the computing device to cause the payment request to be provided to the destination network hub further causes the computing device to at least:
combine the payment request with a plurality of other payment requests to generate a batch of payment requests; and (see Johnston, at least [0036] discloses “the CBP computing device stores, for each funds transfer transaction, the messages going back and forth between the originating bank, the CBP computing device, and the receiving bank. The messages may be consolidated into a single batch file (e.g., as a table) and stored for settlement, for example, in the next settlement cycle. Settlement refers to the transfer of funds between the originating bank and the receiving bank for each funds transfer transaction. In these embodiments, settlement cycles may occur multiple times throughout the day, thereby enabling near real-time settlement of funds, or instead occur once per day (e.g., at the end of the day).”)
send the batch of payment requests to the destination network hub. (see Johnston, at least [0062] discloses “For settlements that do not occur in real-time, settlement statements may include details as to all funds transfer transactions for a given settlement cycle (e.g., a batch file). CBP computing device 102 may transmit 264 the batch file and/or single funds transfer transaction files ( as well as any other stored funds transfer transaction data) to one or more involved parties ( e.g., originating bank 108, first sponsor bank 116, second sponsor bank 118, and/or receiving bank 112) to settle the funds for one or more funds transfer transaction. Thus, in the example embodiment, first sponsor bank 116, second sponsor bank 118, and/or receiving bank 112 may directly settle funds with CBP computing device 102 in accordance with each party's settlement cycle and procedures (e.g., real-time settlement for each funds transfer transaction, settlement once at the end of the day, settlement multiple times per day).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method that includes determining a subset of network routers that offer access to a regional hub based on network address summaries for first and second routers and prioritizing the first router over the second router, based on a specificity value of each of the first and second routers of Carney to include consolidating each funds transfer transaction into single batch file for settlement, as taught by Johnston, in order to provide near real-time settlement of funds. (Johnston: See paragraph [0036])
Regarding claims 14 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 7, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
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 M. 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 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
July 28, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights