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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of December 31, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2010 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they were not filed in black and white (Examiner notes, for best results with digital filings, the black should be hex #000000), and are inadequate for reproduction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are analyzed under the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility framework as set forth in MPEP 2106 informed by the August 4 2025 Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner Kim and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Including on Artificial Intelligence. The second microservice predicts using artificial intelligence a likely time of purchase for the item based on spending activity and one or more rules. Predictive artificial intelligence models implement mathematical relationships between input variables and output variables. The specification confirms the prediction is made by reviewing the Client’s Spending Account and the various contribution Rules and using predictive Artificial Intelligence. This is a mathematical concept. The claims are directed to a savings plan for purchasing items. This plan involves a customer creating a savings plan with rules for electronic fund transfers from a spending account to a savings account a supplier providing an electronic guarantee that an item will be available at a price and a supplier stocking the item at a predicted time. These steps define a commercial interaction a financial arrangement and a fundamental economic practice. This is a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues the claims improve just in time inventory management. The specification describes that the supplier may benefit from the additional time afforded by the Savings Plan System to schedule the ordering of the item and thus reduce storage and capital costs for holding inventory. This benefit is commercial in nature. It is not a technological improvement to a computer system or network. The claims do not set forth an improvement to computer functionality. The limitations describe the savings server and supplier device performing functions such as recording a smart contract predicting a time of purchase providing an electronic guarantee notifying a supplier and initiating a purchasing action. Each function is described at a high level of generality. The specification does not disclose a specific implementation of the artificial intelligence model beyond stating that it uses predictive Artificial Intelligence. It does not disclose a particular architecture for the microservices or a specific supplier communication protocol that solves a technical problem. The electronic guarantee is a contractual promise not a technical guarantee of system performance. The distributed ledger and proof of stake consensus algorithm are employed to record the smart contract but the claims do not show how the operation of the distributed ledger itself is improved.
The claims therefore apply the judicial exception using the additional elements as tools to implement the exception. This is the apply it consideration cautioned against in the Kim Memo. The additional elements in the claims considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Distributed ledger and proof of stake consensus algorithm Distributed ledger technology and proof of stake consensus algorithms were established in the field prior to the earliest filing date. The Hedera network for example publicly documented proof of stake hashgraph consensus and smart contract services before that date. The arXiv survey of thirty consensus algorithms confirms that proof of stake and its variants such as NPoS and BPoS were documented in the literature. Recording a smart contract on a distributed ledger using a proof of stake consensus algorithm is an ordinary application of that technology. Microservices scaling The savings server scales resources allocated to a microservice in response to load on the microservice. This is a standard operational capability of cloud native architectures and distributed systems. It is not particular to the claimed savings plan. The five microservices are defined solely by their business functions record predict provide notify initiate. The claims do not recite any structural details of these microservices. The specification does not describe a specific algorithmic process for the AI prediction a particular communication protocol for supplier notification or a unique mechanism for the purchasing action. The supplier device selects supplier specific protocols creates a production and delivery schedule verifies the electronic guarantee and initiates a product shipping procedure. These are administrative and commercial tasks. They are not technical improvements to a supplier computer.
With respect to ordered combination, the combination of a distributed ledger based smart contract microservice scaling business function microservices and supplier administrative tasks does not produce a technical effect that is significantly more than the sum of the parts. The system remains directed to coordinating a savings plan and inventory management using computers as tools.
Applicant s reliance on Ex parte Varghese is misplaced. In that case the claims were found to reduce computer processing and reduce revenue lost due to delays. Here the specification does not describe any reduction in processor load memory usage network bandwidth or any other computer resource. The claimed electronic guarantee and prediction of purchase time do not correlate to any measured improvement in computer operation.
Applicant contends the combination of elements provides an inventive concept evidenced by novelty and non obviousness. Patentability under 35 U S C 102 and 103 is a separate inquiry from eligibility under 35 U S C 101. A claim may be novel and non obvious yet still be directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Applicant’s arguments do not address the Alice Mayo framework applied above.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of “transferring funds” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice” [commercial or legal interactions including sales activities or business relations) in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 8 recites “a … method of automatically … transferring funds to a savings plan to coordinate purchases and just-in-time inventory management, the method comprising:
selecting one or more supplier-specific protocols for communication between a … and a …, the …, wherein the savings server scales resources allocated to a … in response to load on the …:
receiving, at the …, input from a … to select the savings plan, wherein the savings plan includes one or more rules for a series of automatic … fund transfers from at least one spending account into a savings account to accumulate … funds equal to an indicated price of an item;
recording, by a …, a smart contract embodying the savings plan on a … stored by a … including the …, each … to implementing a scoped proof of stake consensus algorithm to record the smart contract on the …, whereby the customer has stake to publish and validate smart contracts on the … by starting the savings plan;
predicting, by a … of the … using …, a likely time of purchase for the item based on spending activity in the at least one spending account and the one or more rules in the savings plan;
providing, by a … of the …, an … guarantee to the .. that the item will be available at the indicated price at the likely time of purchase;
notifying, by a … of the savings server using a supplier-specific communication protocol, the … to stock the item at the likely time of purchase;
creating, by the …, a production and delivery schedule to manufacture and stock the item in advance of the likely time of purchase;
receiving, by the …, verification from the … that the item will be available at the indicated price at the likely time of purchase;
initiating, by a …, a purchasing action when the savings account has accumulated … funds equaling the indicated price, to purchase the item using the accumulated … funds in the savings account; and
initiating, by the …, a product shipping procedure to physically send the item to the customer when the purchasing action Is initiated by the ...”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
These limitations describe an abstract idea of transferring funds and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging and mitigating risk). Accordingly, claim 8 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., “electronic”, “supplier device”, “savings server executing a plurality of microservices”, “customer device”, “distributed ledger stored by a network of distributed servers” ,”first microservice”, ”second microservice”, “third microservice”, “fourth microservice”, “fifth microservices”, and “computer processor” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 8 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 8 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of transferring funds and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles and commercial or legal interactions including sales activities or business relations). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “computer system”, “electronically”, “customer computer display device displaying a customer interface”, “computer input device”, “electronic”, “network of distributed servers storing a distributed ledger”, “savings server comprising: a computer processor; and computer readable memory storing a plurality of microservices executed by the computer processor”, ”first microservice”, ”second microservice”, “third microservice”, “fourth microservice”, “fifth microservices”, “supplier device displaying a supplier interface”, and “input device”. . The additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Further, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 2 recites “wherein the item is at least one of the group comprising goods and services” which further define the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the … to periodically send … messages to the customer reminding the customer to contribute to the savings account” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “computer readable memory further includes stored instructions”, and “electronic” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on whether a customer is underbudget in one or more spending categories” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on the occurrence of an event relevant to the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on a future event specified by the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on a future event specified by the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on a future event specified by the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “computer processor” as an additional elements. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 10 recites “a computer readable memory having recorded thereon statements and instructions for execution by the computer processor to carry out the method of claim 8” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on a future event specified by the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “electronic”, and “computer server” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by the … based on a future event specified by the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by a … based on the occurrence of an event relevant to the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by a … based on the occurrence of an event relevant to the customer” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is determined by a … based on whether the customer has won or lost a bet” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic”, and “computer processor” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 16 recites wherein the series of … fund transfers includes a contribution amount which is a related to a periodic charge” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “automatic electronic” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a network of distributed servers storing a distributed ledger, each distributed server implementing a scoped proof of stake consensus algorithm to record a smart contract embodying the savings plan on the distributed ledger, whereby the customer has stake to publish and validate smart contracts on the distributed ledger by starting the savings plan”. The specification provides insufficient written description for the term “scoped proof of stake consensus algorithm.” The specification states: “This blockchain technology would have the three traditional blockchain components: distributed data structure (the Distributed Ledger), consensus algorithm (a Proof of Stake variant) and network (the network architecture discussed here). As with most blockchain 2.0 technologies, Smart Contracts play a role. In this case, Smart Contracts embody the Savings Plan logic. A Proof of Stake consensus variant where individuals have ‘scoped stake’ in only those markets which they have demonstrated interest in by either starting a Savings Plan towards a future goal, or purchasing items in the past, facilitates the honest maintenance of the Distributed Ledger 1013 since users who have vested interest in a market are the ones who may most easily publish the relevant transaction records in blocks.” Specification at [0224]. This disclosure does not provide any structural or algorithmic details describing what constitutes “scoped” proof of stake. The specification identifies the consensus algorithm as a “Proof of Stake variant” and describes the concept of “scoped stake” as stake limited to markets where the customer has demonstrated interest. However, the specification does not describe how such a variant is implemented, what parameters define the scope, how the scope is determined, how the consensus mechanism operates differently from standard proof of stake, or any specific technical features that distinguish this variant from known proof of stake consensus algorithms. The specification states only that the stake is “scoped” to markets of demonstrated interest, but fails to provide any descriptive means sufficient to convey possession of this algorithm. The claim requires that “the customer has stake to publish and validate smart contracts on the distributed ledger by starting the savings plan.” The specification does not describe any mechanism by which starting a savings plan confers stake or how that stake is measured, weighted, or utilized in the consensus process. The statement that customers “who have vested interest in a market are the ones who may most easily publish the relevant transaction records in blocks” is conclusory and does not describe a specific algorithm or process. MPEP 2163.
Claim 1 recites “a fourth microservice that notifies, using a supplier-specific communication protocol, a supplier device to stock the item at the likely time of purchase.” Claim 8 recites substantially similar subject matter. The specification provides insufficient written description for the term “supplier-specific communication protocol.” The specification states: “Protocol(s) 904 facilitates communication between the Merchant Savings Server and Product Supplier(s). 904 represents a set of protocols necessary for communicating with Product Suppliers across different industries and different communication sophistication. For example, some suppliers may only take phone orders. Others may have RESTful APIs that are either internal or external. Still more may have advanced GraphQL APIs or similar.” Specification at [0223]. the specification does not describe what constitutes a “supplier-specific” protocol or how the microservice determines, selects, or implements such a protocol. The disclosure merely acknowledges that suppliers use various communication methods. It does not describe any particular protocol as being specific to a supplier, nor does it describe any mechanism for adapting the notification to a supplier’s specific protocol. The claim recites “supplier-specific communication protocol” requires that the protocol be specific to the supplier, yet the specification provides no descriptive means demonstrating possession of any such protocol or any method of customizing communication per supplier. The specification further states: “The supplier device displaying a supplier interface to provide a supplier with an input device to: select one or more supplier-specific protocols for communication between the supplier device and the savings server.” Specification at Claim 1. This claim language itself indicates that the supplier selects the protocol, but the specification does not describe any interface or selection mechanism. There is no description of how protocols are presented to the supplier, how selection is performed, how the selected protocol is stored, or how the microservice thereafter uses the selected protocol. The written description requirement is not satisfied by reciting a function in the claims without describing how that function is implemented. MPEP 2163; In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513
Claims 1 and 8 each recite “ … predicting, by a second microservice of the savings server using artificial intelligence”. The field of predictive artificial intelligence is highly unpredictable. The performance of machine learning models depends critically on feature engineering, model architecture, hyperparameter tuning, and training data quality. The specification provides no direction on what the limitation, comprises. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed. (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I)
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 16, 2026