DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 October 14, 2025. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below. The Examiner would like to note that there are no Attorneys of record on file. Applicants are respectfully requested to file the Power of Attorney documents before filing a response to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system/method of updating a balance of the payment account based on the recorded payment in real time, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system (apparatus).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A system comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing an executable code; and
a hardware processor executing the executable code to:
receive a transaction input, wherein the transaction input includes a payment account number, a transaction identification (ID), and a transaction time;
identify a payment account based on the destination account number in the transaction input and the transaction ID;
move funds associated with the transaction input to a transaction settlement account;
record an entry in a bank transaction ledger adjusting the balance of the payment account based on the funds associated with the transaction input, wherein the bank transaction ledger is stored in a centralized online real-time environment (CORE) of a bank;
transmit an inbound transaction notification to a transaction engine based on the transaction input;
receive an instructional input from the transaction engine regarding the funds associated with the transaction input;
record, using the transaction engine, the transaction associated with the transaction input is a payor account ledger;
move the funds associated with the transaction input from the payment transit account into an operating account associated with a recipient of the funds associated with the transaction input; and
update, in real time, a balance of the payment account based on the recorded payment” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
Updating, in real time, a balance of the payment account based on the recorded payment is a fundamental economic practice such as updating a transaction. Also the steps of the claim considered collectively as an ordered combination, is fulfilling agreements between the user and the financial institution. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination, without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, a non-transitory memory storing an executable code; a hardware processor executing the executable code; a bank transaction ledger, a centralized online real-time environment (CORE) of a bank, a transaction engine, and a payor account ledger, 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 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a non-transitory memory and a hardware processor, a bank transaction ledger, a centralized online real-time environment (CORE) of a bank, a transaction engine, and a payor account ledger to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figure 1 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that the hardware processor may be a generic processor suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The non-transitory memory may be a generic memory suitably programmed to store the associated information. The bank transaction ledger, the centralized online real-time environment (CORE) of a bank and the payor account ledger are interpreted to include generic storage components suitably programmed to store the associated information. The transaction engine interpreted to include combination of generic hardware/software suitably programmed to perform the associated function. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 9 is also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 10-16, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2, and 10, the step “wherein the transaction ID is one of an alphabetic code, a numeric code, and an alphanumeric code” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the transaction ID used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 3-5 and 11-13, the steps
“wherein the bank transaction ledger is one of a general ledger and a virtual ledger”,
“wherein the payment account is a virtual account” and
“wherein the payment account is maintained on the CORE” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6, and 14, the step “wherein the transaction settlement account is one of a general ledger account or a For Benefit Of (FBO) account” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describes the transaction settlement account used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 7, and 15, the step “wherein the payment account is an account For Benefit Of (FBO) a bank customer” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describes the payment account used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 8, and 16, the step “wherein the transaction engine records all operations on the CORE ledger system of a financial institution” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describes the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-16 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Justin X. Howe (US Pub. 20160110712 A1 and Rajagopal Raj et al. US Pub. 20140114852 A1), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “recording, using the hardware processor, an entry in a bank transaction ledger adjusting the balance of the payment account based on the funds associated with the transaction input, wherein the bank transaction ledger is stored in a centralized online real-time environment (CORE) of a bank …… moving, using the hardware processor, the funds associated with the transaction input from the payment transit account into an operating account associated with a recipient of the funds associated with the transaction input”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1, and 9 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-8, and 10-16 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Raman; Rajesh et al. (US Pub. 2025/0356329 A1) discloses a system and method for making credit card to credit card payments. The system may include a processor, a network, a general ledger, a staging element with reconcilement capabilities, an institution account, and a clearing house account. The system may complete a credit card to credit card transaction by utilizing the credit available in a credit card account to reimburse funds utilized through the institution account. The clearing house ensures the transaction is satisfied by both the institution account and the credit card account. The operations may include providing an interface; using generative artificial intelligence to generate a prompt specific to an account associated with the interface; and displaying the prompt to a user of the account.
(b) Eby; Alaric M. et al. (US Pub. 2023/040155 A1) discloses a transaction account based micro-payment system using blockchain. The system may receive a micro-payment request including a payment address from a merchant system. The system may invoke an account holder account smart contract and a directory smart contract. The system may write a plurality of micro-payment transaction debits to a transaction account based micro-payment blockchain via a blockchain node. The system may generate a transaction clearance event based on the account holder account smart contract. The system may write a micro-payment transaction clearance credit to the transaction account based micro-payment blockchain.
6. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights