Multiple settlement options in payment system

Art Unit 3697·Examiner WORJLOH, JALATEE·Filed Dec 23, 2024·Status since May 27, 2026

Applicant Mastercard International Incorporated·Inventor Shanthan Subramaniam et al.

The latest Office Action

Mailed May 27, 2026 · Final Office Action · 48 days to respond

The examiner has issued a Final Office Action maintaining that claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea (a judicial exception under §101) without significantly more. An abstract idea rejection means the examiner believes the claims cover a concept like a fundamental economic practice or method of organizing human activity, rather than a concrete technological improvement. No prior art references were cited—this is purely a patent-eligibility issue.

The applicant has three months from May 27, 2026 (extendable to six months with fees) to respond. Typical options include filing an RCE with arguments or amendments that tie the claims to a technical solution, requesting an examiner interview to clarify the technology, or appealing to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Compiled case file available

final outstanding

This application's complete prosecution record has been compiled by PatentReply — every office action, response, claim version, and cited reference, verified against the USPTO file wrapper.

Office actions: 2
Pending claims: 20
References on file: 0
History through: 2026-05-27

§101 [ground-101-1] claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Final Office ActionLatest

May 27, 2026 · §101

Final Office Action — all claims 1-20 rejected under §101 as abstract idea

Rejection groups (1)

§ 101Abstract Ideaclaims 1-20

Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.

Examiner theory

In the instant case, claims 1-6 and 13-16 are directed to a system. Claims 7-12 and 17-20 are directed to a device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of transmitting instructions to credit a holding account and to transfer funds. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors,

Procedural framework (6)

MPEP§ 2106.04(a)·§ 2106.04(a)(2)·§ 2106.04(d)·§ 2106.05·§ 2106.05(a)·§ 2106.05(e)

Identifier	Type	Name / Author	Link
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708	non patent literature	—	View ↗
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	non patent literature	—	View ↗

Multiple settlement options in payment system

The latest Office Action

Compiled case file available

Draft a response to this Office Action

Claim status

Prosecution history

All Office Actions (2)

Final Office ActionLatest

Rejection groups (1)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (2)

Prior art consulted (2)