DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is NOT integrated into a practical application. In particular, the rationale for finding is explained below:
Regarding claims 1-18 and 20-25, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 25 are directed towards a method, claims 8-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-18 and 20-24 are directed towards a system. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement".
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two):
A computer-implemented method for incentivizing saving comprising:
Providing an electronic service including a control logic stored in a main memory and secondary memory as a controller of a computer system;
providing a communications interface linked to a channel capable of carrying signals and a first account and a second account, the communications interface configured to transfer software and data between the computer system and external devices including a mobile phone in the form of electronic, electromagnetic or optical signals, allowing the mobile phone to access the delivery network through a communication link and communicate with other computer systems,
directing a programmed recurring electronic transfer from a first account to a second account through a computer program containing instructions the programmed recurring electronic transfer,
transferring software and data in the form of electronic, electromagnetic or optical signals,
receiving the transferred data representing the programmed recurring electronic transfer from the first account to the second account, the second account being a savings account,
the control logic causing a computer based calculation module to initiate and control the programmed recurring electronic transfer through the computer-based calculation module in communication with both the first account and the second account via a communication device, the computer-based calculation module monitoring the transfers from the first account to the second account,
determining, by a processor, a number of recurring transfers received by the computer-based calculation module, the computer-based calculation module recording only the programmed recurring electronic transfers controlled by another process,
transmitting the transferred data over a communications data channel through a server,
a client computer system interacting with a browser to select a particular URL, which in tum causes the browser to send a request for that URL or page to the server identified in the URL,
the server responding to the request by retrieving the requested page and transmitting the data for that page back to the requesting client computer system,
adding, by a processor, a bonus to the second account when the number of programmed recurring electronic transfers received is above a threshold during a period of time, thereby generating a loyalty reward, the bonus calculated by the computer-based calculation module, and
displaying the transmitted data as the requested page regarding the programmed recurring electronic transfer on a client display screen.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2B - Prong Two). The claims recite the abstract idea of sending and receiving data to implement a methodology/system to incentivize user actions. A “loyalty system” is a Targeted Advertising System to specific users which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Additional Independent Claims: The analysis of claim 1 is applicable to the additional independent claims 8 and 12 as these additional claims comprise alternate embodiments that implement the same steps of the method of the claim analyzed above. The additional independent claims recite the same or similar additional elements as the claim analyzed above.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-18, and 20-25 recite the same additional elements as the parent claim(s) and/or fail to recite any additional elements. The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea.
Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). Thus, Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.
The claims offer the additional elements of: a computer, a control logic, a main memory, secondary memory, a computer system, a communications interface, a mobile phone, the delivery network, other computer systems, a computer program containing instructions, the control logic, the calculation module, a computer-based calculation module, a communication device, the computer-based calculation module, a processor, the computer-based calculation module, the computer-based calculation module recording, a communications data channel, a server, a client computer system, the server, the requesting client computer system, a processor, the computer-based calculation module… . It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. The additional element(s) are simply utilized as generic computing tools to implement the abstract idea, functioning as mere instructions to apply the exception. Figures 1-3 and their related text and Paragraphs 0030-0035 and 0040-0042 of the specification (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0042489 A1 – hereinafter specification and/or disclosure) detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Further, Paragraphs 0031-0035 of the specification specifically detail a generic computer where it mentions “general-purpose computer” and “general purpose computer”. However, these limitations simply generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Per MPEP 2106, simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, see Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223 (The ‘mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); see also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where ‘it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.’”) (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the claims appear to be a solution to a commercial/business problem of detecting fraudulent activity in advertisement systems.
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
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. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis under Step 2B does not consider the elements describing the abstract ideas that are set forth above in Step 2A. Instead, the analysis only assesses the claim limitations other than the invention's use of the ineligible concepts to which the claims are directed. The court's precedent has consistently employed this same approach, and as a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add "significantly more" to it. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Also receiving and transmitting data over a network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Symantec), and processing that data network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am), and storing data and electronic recordkeeping is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Alice Corp).
As the claims do not contain additional elements other than those set forth above in Step 2A, the analysis is complete and the claims are found to be absent additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion: Accordingly, because the Applicant's claims reflect claims the Courts have determined to be abstract ideas, the Applicant’s claims likewise are directed to abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1-18 and 20-25 either alone and/or as an ordered combination of elements are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, as the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea and as the additional elements of the dependent claims do not constitute a practical application, the dependent claims or the claims as a whole are not patent eligible.
Examiner Note
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Pre-AIA ), or under 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ), as being unpatentable over Tucker et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0081411 A1 – Hereinafter Tucker) and further in view of Strock et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0259364 A1 – Hereinafter Strock) and further in view of Aloni et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0198403 A1 – Hereinafter Aloni).
Claim 1:
Tucker teaches;
A computer-implemented method for incentivizing saving comprising: (See at least the abstract – “A computer implemented system and method are disclosed of processing a financial transaction that includes determining an automatic savings amount and rewards amount payments.”)
providing an electronic service including a control logic stored in a main memory … … as a controller of a computer system; (The method is being performed on a computer (computer implemented method in the preamble) so software to perform the function was already inherent in the claim and Tucker teaches a software/program which is control logic in at least paragraphs 0071-0073.)
providing a communications interface linked to a channel capable of carrying signals and a first account and a second account, the … … a mobile phone in the form of electronic, electromagnetic or optical signals, allowing the mobile phone to access the delivery network through a communications link and communicate with other computer systems, (Tucker details a programmed recurring electronic transfer from one account to another via a recurring auto-payment in at least paragraph 0065 – “In another example, the account holder may be required to maintain a minimum balance (e.g., $300) and/or enroll in an automatic scheduled transfer (e.g., a monthly automated transfer of $25 from a checking to the savings account) to be eligible for the aforementioned retroactively applied bonus feature.” and data representing that transfer is received on monthly statements in at least paragraph 0064. In addition, Strock teaches a mobile device (cell phone or PDA) communicating with the bank through a communication link in at least paragraphs 0073 and 0084.)
directing a programmed recurring electronic transfer from a first account to a second account through a computer program containing instructions the programmed recurring electronic transfer, (Tucker details a programmed recurring electronic transfer from one account to another via a recurring auto-payment in at least paragraph 0065 – “In another example, the account holder may be required to maintain a minimum balance (e.g., $300) and/or enroll in an automatic scheduled transfer (e.g., a monthly automated transfer of $25 from a checking to the savings account) to be eligible for the aforementioned retroactively applied bonus feature.” and data representing that transfer is received on monthly statements in at least paragraph 0064.)
receiving the transferred data representing the programmed recurring electronic transfer from the first account to the second account, the second account being a savings account, (Tucker details counting a recurring transfer from one account to another via a recurring auto-transfer in at least paragraph 0067.)
the control logic causing the computer-based calculation module to initiate and control the programmed recurring electronic transfer through a computer-based calculation module in communication with both the first account and the second account via a communication device, the computer-based calculation module monitoring the transfers from the first account to the second account; (Tucker details counting a recurring transfer from one account (first account) to another account (second account) via a recurring auto-transfer in at least paragraph 0067 and Tucker teaches recording the transfers via standard banking where transfers in and out of an account are noted in the statements in at least paragraph 0064 and since the payments are for auto payments the transfer is controlled by the biller who request payment of the amount of the bill and is paid. Hence the creditor (“another process”) controls the transfer. Further, one or modules, on one or more processors calculate and monitor the functionality of the process in at least Fig 3A and 3B and their related text which perform the function of the “the computer-based calculation module” of the claim. Further, Applicant’s specification illustrates the “the computer-based calculation module” as item 103 in Fig 1 as a “black box” performing the functionality, whereas Strock offers this same black box as its “Promotional Rewards Engine (PRE)” that details further items within the PRE as various other modules offering further detail of subroutines.)
determining, by a processor, a number of recurring transfers received by the computer-based calculation module, the computer-based calculation module recording only the programmed recurring electronic transfers …, (Tucker details counting a recurring transfer from one account to another via a recurring auto-transfer in at least paragraph 0067. And the calculation module is the computer that controls the system. Paragraph 0065 details bonuses after a year which is determining the number of programmed recurring electronic transfers. This meets the requirements of calculation module recording only “the programmed recurring electronic transfers”. The number of overall recurring transfers is not used anywhere in the system but only “the programmed recurring electronic transfers”, therefore since information from a number of recurring transfers is not used for anything except getting “the programmed recurring electronic transfers” Tucker teaches that limitation.)
transmitting the transferred data over a communications data channel through a server, (See at least paragraph 0024.)
a client computer system interacting with a browser to select a particular URL, which in tum causes the browser to send a request for that URL or page to the server identified in the URL, (See at least paragraph 0024 where Tucker teaches the data can be manipulated and displayed in web based browsing which is send, and receiving the data.)
the server responding to the request by retrieving the requested page and transmitting the data for that page back to the requesting client computer system, (Tucker teaches online statement which would have details of transfers in at least paragraph 0064 and in at least paragraph 0024 Tucker teaches the data can be manipulated and displayed in web based browsing so the data for the information is sent from the server to the user’s device.)
adding, by a processor, a bonus to the second account when the number of programmed recurring electronic transfers received is above a threshold during a period of time, thereby generating a loyalty reward, the bonus calculated by the computer-based calculation module, and (Tucker teaches a bonus based upon transfers in at least paragraphs 0064, 0065, and 0067 and more of a bonus after a year (threshold) in paragraph 0065.)
displaying the transmitted data as the requested page regarding the programmed recurring electronic transfer on a client display screen. (Tucker teaches online statement which would have details of transfers in at least paragraph 0064 and in at least paragraph 0024 Tucker teaches the data can be manipulated and displayed in web based browsing which is send, and receiving the data.)
Tucker does not appear to specify transfer controlled by another.
Strock teaches an auto-payment for bonuses in at least paragraphs 0211 and since the payments are for auto payments the transfer is controlled by the biller who request payment of the amount of the bill and is paid. Hence the creditor (“another process”) controls the transfer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method taught by Tucker by using transfers controlled by another as taught by Strock in order to allow systems for in house transfers and third party transfers.
The combination of Strock and Tucker teaches data transfer but does not appear to explicitly specify “providing a communications interface configured to transfer software data between the computer system and external devices in the form of electronic, electromagnetic or optical signals” nor does the combination of Tucker and Strock appear to teach storing the control logic (program) in a secondary location.
Aloni teaches a communications interface that allows software and data to be transferred between the computer system and external devices between in at least paragraphs 0054 and teaches storing the program in a secondary memory in at least paragraph 0066 and transferring between remote devices and a computer system n at least Figures 3A 3B and their related text. Paragraph 0066 of Aloni states “Computer programs (also referred to as computer control logic) are stored in main memory 608 and/or secondary memory 610” which is almost verbatim applicant’s specification where it states “Computer programs (also called computer control logic) are stored in the main memory and/or secondary memory.” In paragraph 0039.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method of data/information transfer and program storage taught by the combination of Tucker and Strock by using a communications interface that allows software and data to be transferred between computer systems and external devices and storing the program in a secondary location as taught by Aloni in order to allow for system updates to be transferred and a back-up program to be easily available if the system is corrupted.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 2, 9, 13:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 12. Further, Tucker teaches rewarding a customer for whatever one sets a trigger for and teaches awards as a percent of an amount, and monitoring accounts in all different kind of averages in at least paragraph 0047.
Although Tucker teaches the awards based on triggering events, and teaches awards as a percentage, and teaches monitoring the accounts, Tucker does not appear to explicitly specify a bonus as a percent of the average balance.
Since tucker teaches monitoring different averages and monitoring the account and calculating the bonus as percentages, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method taught by Tucker to include the award as a percent of the average balance of the account in order to incentivize the loyal behavior of maintaining a higher balance in the account.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 3:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Further, Tucker teaches the period of time is one year in at least paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0056, 0065, and 0067-0070.
Claim 4:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Further, Tucker teaches recurring monthly transfers in at least paragraphs 0055, 0065, and 0067.
Claim 5 and 16:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 15.
Further, Tucker teaches rewarding a customer for whatever one sets a trigger for and teaches awards based on a certain number of transactions in at least paragraph 0047 and Tucker setting a threshold/trigger of twelve by teaching recurring monthly payments in at least paragraphs 0055, 0065, and 0067 and a yearlong time period in at least paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0056, 0065, and 0067-0070. If one has a yearlong time period and recurring monthly payments the trigger is 12 since there are 12 months in a year. Tucker does not appear to explicitly specify a threshold of ten.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to try setting the threshold to ten, because (1) at the time the invention was made, there was a recognized need, as shown by Tucker, to set different thresholds of the number of required balance transfers used to trigger rewarding users with bonuses (see at least paragraph 0047), including the thresholds of three month and six months (see at least paragraphs 0053, 0055, and 0065) and as low as one event (maintain a minimum balance), and the threshold could be any number of transactions (see at least paragraph 0055); (2) there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to setting a threshold, i.e., the number of transactions ranging from none to the most a consumer could possibly make within a given time period; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known solutions by choosing different values with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 6 and 17:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 15.
Further, Tucker teaches rewarding a customer for whatever one sets a trigger for and teaches awards based on a certain number of transactions in at least paragraph 0047 and Tucker setting a threshold/trigger of twelve by teaching recurring monthly payments in at least paragraphs 0055, 0065, and 0067 and a yearlong time period in at least paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0056, 0065, and 0067-0070. If one has a yearlong time period and recurring monthly payments the trigger is 12 since there are 12 months in a year. Tucker does not appear to explicitly specify a threshold of eleven.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to try setting the threshold to ten, because (1) at the time the invention was made, there was a recognized need, as shown by Tucker, to set different thresholds of the number of required balance transfers used to trigger rewarding users with bonuses (see at least paragraph 0047), including the thresholds of three month and six months (see at least paragraphs 0053, 0055, and 0065) and as low as one event (maintain a minimum balance), and the threshold could be any number of transactions (see at least paragraph 0055); (2) there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to setting a threshold, i.e., the number of transactions ranging from none to the most a consumer could possibly make within a given time period; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known solutions by choosing different values with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 7:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Further, Tucker setting a threshold/trigger of twelve by teaching, as discussed previously, recurring monthly payments in at least paragraphs 0055, 0065, and 0067 and a yearlong time period in at least paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0056, 0065, and 0067-0070. If one has a yearlong time period and recurring monthly payments the trigger is 12 since there are 12 months in a year.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Further, Tucker teaches the bonus is a dollar amount related to the average balance of the second account via calculating the reward based on the transfer amount which is related to the actual balance (the actual balance is related to the transferred amount since the balance includes transfers) in at least paragraph 0057.
Claim 11:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Further, Tucker teaches the bonus is a fixed amount independent of the balance in at least paragraph 0033.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Tucker does not appear to explicitly specify controlling the monetary transfer through a “calculation module”.
Tucker teaches that all the modules are in communication with each other and the modules can be programmed in any manner to perform the function desired in the method/system in paragraph 0020-0022. Therefore this teaches that if you want a particular module to perform/control an action based upon the rules of the program, the module may be programmed that way.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method taught by Tucker by programming the modules in whichever fashion is desired to perform the incentive based reward program in order to produce the desired behavior that is incentivized.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 14:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Further, Tucker teaches the period of time is one year in at least paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0056, 0065, and 0067-0070.
Claim 15:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Further, Tucker teaches recurring monthly transfers in at least paragraphs 0055, 0065, and 0067.
Claim 18:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 15. Further, Tucker teaches the period of time is one year in at least paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0056, 0065, and 0067-0070.
Claim 20:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Further, Tucker teaches the bonus is a dollar amount related to the average balance of the second account via calculating the reward based on the transfer amount which is related to the actual balance (the actual balance is related to the transferred amount since the balance includes transfers) in at least paragraph 0057.
Claim 21:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Further, Tucker teaches the bonus is a fixed amount independent of the balance in at least paragraph 0033.
Claims 22 and 23:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Further, Tucker teaches “wherein the data regarding the recurring transfer is displayed on a client display screen” and “wherein the server is configured to respond to a request for data regarding a recurring transfer and transmit the data to the requesting client computer” in at least paragraphs 0064 and 0067 where data representing that transfer is received on monthly statements and the statements are online which is on the customer’s screen.
Claim 24:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Further, Tucker teaches “wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform electronic analysis regarding the programmed recurring electronic transfer” via online statements which is a downloaded electronic statement and the user can perform any analysis on the information desired in at least paragraphs 0064 and 0067.
Claim 25:
The Combination of Tucker, Strock, and Aloni teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Tucker does not appear to explicitly specify “wherein the computer-based calculation module records the programmed recurring electronic transfer”
Tucker teaches that all the modules are in communication with each other and the modules can be programmed in any manner to perform the function desired in the method/system in paragraph 0020-0022. Therefore this teaches that if you want a particular module to perform/control an action based upon the rules of the program, the module may be programmed that way.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method taught by Tucker by programming the modules in whichever fashion is desired to perform the incentive based reward program in order to produce the desired behavior that is incentivized.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Applicants respectfully request that the finality of the office action be withdrawn because the Examiner's characterization of the claim amendments is erroneous and misinterprets the amendments to the claims in the most recently filed Amendment (filed May 22, 2025)”. However, there appears to be no response in the file wrapper dated 5/22/2025, so Examiner is unclear as to exactly which response Applicant is referring. Regardless, Applicant has currently filed an RCE, and therefore any question of finality is therefore moot.
Applicant has further re-included arguments that were already presented in the after final response dated 9/18/2025, and therefore those arguments will be readdressed below:
Applicant argues that finality should be withdrawn because the claim language added renders the claims patentably distinct. However, the claim language originally stated "providing a control logic stored in a main memory and secondary memory as a controller of a computer system". Applicant has merely added a label, naming the provided elements as "an electronic service". Nothing functional or altering to the claim language has been added. This is merely a title that adds nothing functional to the claim and does nothing to render the claim patentably distinct from the language that preceded it. The later "added" limitation was actually not added at all, since it already appeared later in the claim. Once again, this makes the claim language patentably indistinct from the language that preceded it. Therefore, the finality is proper.
Applicant argues “in BASCOM, the combination of additional elements…were held to be meaningful limitations because they confined the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea”. Applicant then lists numerous limitations of the claim language and broadly states the claims are directed to a specific, particular, and practical application. However, the court found that the claims of BASCOM contained an unconventional arrangement of elements that, when viewed in combination, would provide a technology based solution of filtering content on the Internet. Specifically, it was determined that the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user would provide “both the benefits of a filter on the local computer, and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server”. There is no such functionality present in the current claim language. Rather, the claims are entirely directed to the abstract idea while merely using general purpose computing elements to apply the abstract idea. There is no unconventional arrangement of elements, as all of the general purpose computing devices are arranged in a way that would be expected to carry out the invention.
Applicant argues “the claimed subject matter improves upon previous systems and methods that relied on a manual creating of savings accounts. The conventional methods were not only slower, but also subjective, lacking automation, and did not confer any benefit to the environment (lacking electronic and green options for transfers)”. However, automating a known process electronically is the entire basis of “apply it”. Further, there is no improvement beyond and improvement to the abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the determination was made that the improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic, on Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13, states “Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract”.
Applicant argues “the claims are not doomed merely because of the non-physical or intangible components that give the claims their inventive subject matter. Rather, what is critical to note is the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention”. Examiner has considered all additional elements, and none of those elements have been found to represent significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant states numerous elements of the claim language that Tucker, Strock, and Aloni supposedly do not teach. However, Applicant has not given any specific reasoning or arguments as to why the rejection over Tucker, Strock, and Aloni in combination do not address each and every limitation recited in the claim language. Applicant does not provide any reason that the explanation given in the rejection above is not sufficient to explain why the limitations are taught. For the reasons cited in the rejection above, and without Applicant’s exact reasoning as to why the teachings of the prior art do not meet the claim language, Examiner can only point back to the rejection above as to the reasons why the claim limitations currently stand appropriately rejected.
Since Examiner did not respond to the amendment “through a communications link” in the advisory action dated 10/22/2025, the current office action will not be first action final. However, Examiner notes that the rejection above states that “Strock teaches a mobile device (cell phone or PDA) communicating with the bank in at least paragraphs 0073 and 0084.” Any communication between a cell phone or PDA and a bank naturally occurs through a communication link between the 2 parties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, 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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621