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 .
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 12/15/2025. As
directed by the amendments claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20-22 are amended. Claims 10, 13, and 19 were previously canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant arguments regarding Objections to the Drawings:
Applicant’s amendments to Fig 5, with respect to the objection(s) of drawing have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101:
A. Under Alice Step 2A, Prong One, Claims 1, 11, and 20 are not directed to an Abstract Idea
The recited elements, for example of claim 1, involve aspects that are not traditionally seen as being an extension of human cognitive ability. For example, the step of […]
Further still, in general, these steps are contemplated to be used on vast quantities of data in a manner that a human mind cannot perform. As such, predictive costs of using a card network can be determined in manner that cannot be performed in the human mind to provide a change in transaction volume as a result. There is not a mental process counterpart to this activity. In other words, the technological effect captured by the recited elements is inherently technological and can only operates within a technological environment. The problem and solution is set squarely in a technological environment where costs for card processing occurs only because of the processing occurs in the technological environment.
Indeed, the claims are directed to a specific technological solution for determining a predicted total cost of network-based card transactions within a first time period using a trained machine learning model for predicting fee description identifiers for network-based card transactions, providing that information to a user, and receiving an adjusted volume of transactions as a result - a practical, real-world network processing concern that did not exist in the pre-Internet / pre-network era. At least because these concerns arise out of the usage of technology, they are firmly rooted in a technological domain and are therefore not directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but is rooted in a technological environment and is clearly directed to a technological improvement. […]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, whether a claim limitation recites aspects that are traditionally seen or not does not exclude the claim limitation from reciting an abstract idea in step 2A Prong 1. Claim limitations that are practically implementable in the human mind are understood to be a recitation of a mental process. As highlighted in the updated 35 USC 101 rejection below, claim 1 recites a combination of mental steps under step 2A Prong 1, and additional elements under steps 2A Prong 2 & 2B.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed limitations do not limit the claims to vast quantities of data in a manner that a human mind cannot perform. The claims could be interpreted in a manner which is practically implementable in the human mind. The technological environment/aspects are also addressed as additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea.
Applicant further argues
B. Under Alice Step 2A, Prong Two, Claims 1, 11, and 20 Integrate the Purported Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Notably, when a set of card transaction events incurs a cost to the first entity, the actual cost is unknown and indeterminable when the event is received, for example, because the actual cost is determined well after the card transaction event occurs. For example, the Specification describes that a "networked system as described herein can estimate network costs to generate bills (e.g., for requesting payment of associated costs) for users during a given month, and make adjustments in the following month to the reported actuals." (Specification at paragraph [0013]).By providing a predicted total cost to the client device, an entity associated with the client device may adjust the number of events in response to the predicted cost.
With regard to the volume or number of transactions being different, the Office Action describes a similar recitation as corresponding to "insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer function." Office Action, at p. 12. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1 recites, for example, that "a difference in the second volume is based on a change in transaction behavior by the first entity in response to the predicted total cost for the first entity to control fee exposure in real time and prior to obtaining an actual total cost for the first set of card transaction events." Thus, the effect of the fee prediction has real measured results on the volume of transactions for a subsequent second set of card transaction events. This is not "insignificant extra solution activity" at least because it is directly related to the predicting. […]
In Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, for example, although "the analysis step of the claims was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method 'moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application.'" МРЕР 2106.05(e), citing Classen (659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Similarly, the additional recitations do not merely provide a technical environment for practicing the alleged judicial exception, but rather the additional recitations meaningfully limit the application of the asserted judicial exception to a specific application resulting in an adjusted volume of card transaction events.
Further, under MPEP 2106.05(a) the recited elements result in an improvement to the functioning of a computer. The Office Action asserts that the reasons provided in Applicant's previous response were "conclusory" and that "it is unclear how exactly the claim limitations provide a reduction of resources." Office Action, at pp. 6-7. However, the Office Action seems to have ignored the descriptions provided by the Specification and linked to the claim language. As explained in the Applicant's specification, "the subject technology predicts the fee description instead of the fee amount (e.g., the fee rate charged by a given fee network for processing a given transaction) directly for a few reasons...[t]he description makes it easier for the subject technology to iterate during a prototype stage...[h]aving an explicit lookup table allows us to better monitor/inspect the output." Specification at paragraph [0076]-[0079]. […]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, evaluating an estimated or predicted cost and making adjustments to the number of events in response to the predicted cost is a mental process.
Receiving a second set of card transaction events is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Changing transaction behavior in response to the predicted total cost to control fee exposure is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).
Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC describes a different application and analysis. The additional elements disclosed by applicant’s claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract ideas.
MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) states: “The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
The claimed limitations do not describe a prototype stage and the claim limitations do not reflect that predicting a fee description instead of a fee amount leads to a reduction of compute resources. MPEP (§2106.05(a)(II)) also warns, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Predicting/estimating network costs is an improvement to abstract idea itself.
Applicant further argues
C. Under Alice Step 2B, the Additional Elements Recited in Claims 1, 11, and 20 Contribute to an Inventive Concept […]
For example, for the claimed element including "over a first period of time, receiving and processing, over a card network, a first set of card transaction events associated with a first entity wherein each card transaction event incurs a cost to the first entity that is specific to each card transaction event, wherein an actual cost for each card transaction event is unknown and indeterminable to the server device when each card transaction event is received," with respect to a similar element, the Office Action alleges that "this step is directed to transmitting or receiving information." This, however, ignores the additional recited information that "each card transaction event incurs a cost to the first entity that is specific to each card transaction event, wherein an actual cost for each card transaction event is unknown and indeterminable to the server device when each card transaction event is received." […]
The Office Action ignores that this order of elements ties directly to that described in the Specification - "the subject technology predicts the fee description instead of the fee amount (e.g., the fee rate charged by a given fee network for processing a given transaction) directly for a few reasons...[t]he description makes it easier for the subject technology to iterate during a prototype stage...[h]aving an explicit lookup table allows us to better monitor/inspect the output." Specification at paragraphs [0076]-[0079]. […]
This is because they provide an integrated solution of providing a predicted feе description identifier instead of the fee amount (e.g., the fee rate charged by a given fee network for processing a given transaction) directly for a few reasons...[t]he description makes it easier for the subject technology to iterate during a prototype stage...[h]aving an explicit lookup table allows us to better monitor/inspect the output." Specification at paragraphs [0076]-[0079]. In contrast to the known cited art, for example, such a process is not performed. […]
However, the analysis of claims 3 in Example 47 continues on to describe that the steps "use the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive steps to remediate the danger after detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets in real time. Steps (d)-(f) reflect the improvement described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. The additional elements in steps (d)-(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field." Id. at p. 42. Similarly, the steps recited in claim 1, which intake a particular event to determine a workflow, current state, and triggering condition, and perform an offloading of at least part of the event to another device, constitutes an inventive concept and practical application of the recited elements. This improvement is in-line with that described in the Specification, as discussed above. It is clear that providing predictions based on a predicted fee description identifier would result in an improvement of the functioning of the computer or the technical field. And further that this result when provided to another party that results in a change in the volume of transactions indicates that a technological solution has been provided to a technological problem. Thus, the additional elements, when considered in combination, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and include an inventive concept because the additional claim elements improves the functioning of a computer or technical field and/or provide meaningful limits on the use of the claimed technology. […]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim limitation is describing receiving a first set of card transaction events. The step further describing each card transaction event incurring a cost further specifies the information being received. The limitation as a whole is still describing receiving information and data gathering which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Examiner respectfully disagrees determining a respective predicted fee description identifier is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation). The claim limitation describes an improvement in an abstract idea itself and not an improvement in technology (see MPEP (§2106.05(a)(II)).)
The claim limitation describing receiving a second set of card transaction events is describing receiving information and data gathering. The step further describes that the received second set of card transaction events comprises a volume. The limitation as a whole is still describing receiving information and data gathering which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claimed limitations do not describe a prototype stage and the claim limitations do not reflect that predicting a fee description identifier instead of a fee amount leads to a reduction of compute resources. MPEP (§2106.05(a)(II)) also warns, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Predicting/estimating network costs is an improvement to the abstract idea itself. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, describes a different application and analysis. The additional elements disclosed by applicant’s claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Example 47 claim 3 is describing a different invention and improvement that does not relate to applicants claims. Providing predictions based on a predicted fee description identifier would not result in an improvement of the functioning of the computer or the technical field. Evaluating an estimated or predicted cost and making adjustments in response to the predicted cost is a mental process. Claim 1 describes receiving a second set of card transaction events which is directed to receiving information, and is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Changing transaction behavior in response to the predicted total cost to control fee exposure is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment). Overall, the claim limitations are a combination of mental steps under step 2A Prong 1, and additional elements under steps 2A Prong 2 & 2B as detailed in the updated 101 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 36 recites "second card transaction events different that a first volume of card transaction events". Examiner believes "that a" is meant to state "than a" instead. Claims 11 and 20 also recite similar limitations.. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14-18, and 20-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9, and 21-23 are directed to a method, claims 11-12, and 14-18 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding Claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
A method comprising:
generating, card network provided by a card network provider; (This step for generating training data is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
determining, identifier for each respective card transaction event in the first set of card transaction events over the first period of time, wherein the respective predicted fee description identifier is distinct from a respective fee amount for each respective card transaction event; (This step for determining a predicted fee description identifier is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
determining, as a predicted cost, a combination of a previous variable rate and a previous fixed amount for each respective card transaction event in the first set of card transaction events using a dynamically updated lookup table constructed from recent reporting data received from the card network provider and the respective predicted fee description identifier for each respective card transaction event, wherein determining the previous variable rate and the previous fixed amount comprises performing a lookup operation on the lookup table to determine the previous variable rate and the previous fixed amount associated with the respective predicted fee description identifier for a card transaction event corresponding to the recent reporting data; (This step for determining a variable rate and fixed amount using a lookup table is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation).)
determining, first set of card transaction events based at least in part on each predicted cost for each respective predicted fee description identifier including the previous variable rate and the previous fixed amount for each respective card transaction event of the first set of card transaction events; (This step for determining a predicted total cost is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation).)
wherein a difference in the second volume is based on a change in transaction behavior by the first entity in response to the predicted total cost for the first entity to control fee exposure in real time and prior to obtaining an actual total cost for the first set of card transaction events; (This step describing change in transaction behavior in response to the predicted total cost to control fee exposure is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment). Para 0074 of applicants specification further describe the limitation.)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
by a server device (The server device is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
training, by the server device, a machine learning model using the training data to generate a predicted fee description identifier corresponding to an input card transaction event; (Training a machine learning model is understood as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g., generate predictions) on a computer - see MPEP 2106.05(f).))
over a first period of time, receiving and processing, over a card network, a first set of card transaction events associated with a first entity wherein each card transaction event incurs a cost to the first entity that is specific to each card transaction event, wherein an actual cost for each card transaction event is unknown and indeterminable to the server device when each card transaction event is received; (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
using the machine learning model (This step is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely applying a generic machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., predicting) - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
providing, by the server device, for display at a client device, the predicted total cost for the first set of card transaction events over the first period of time, wherein the client device is associated with the first entity; (This step is directed to transmitting information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
responsive to providing the predicted total cost to the client device, receiving, over a second period of time subsequent to the first period of time, a second set of card transaction events associated with the first entity for the card network provider, wherein the second set of card transaction events comprise a volume of second card transaction events different that a first volume of card transaction events of the first set of card transaction events, (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
processing the second set of card transaction events using the same trained machine learning model and dynamically updated lookup table. (This step is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely applying a generic machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., predicting) - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
by a server device (The server device is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
training, by the server device, a machine learning model using the training data to generate a predicted fee description identifier corresponding to an input card transaction event; (Training a machine learning model is understood as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g., generate predictions) on a computer - see MPEP 2106.05(f).))
over a first period of time, receiving and processing, over a card network, a first set of card transaction events associated with a first entity wherein each card transaction event incurs a cost to the first entity that is specific to each card transaction event, wherein an actual cost for each card transaction event is unknown and indeterminable to the server device when each card transaction event is received; (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(d)(ll)(i))))
using the machine learning model (This step is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely applying a generic machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., predicting) - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
providing, by the server device, for display at a client device, the predicted total cost for the first set of card transaction events over the first period of time, wherein the client device is associated with the first entity; (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(d)(ll)(i))))
responsive to providing the predicted total cost to the client device, receiving, over a second period of time subsequent to the first period of time, a second set of card transaction events associated with the first entity for the card network provider, wherein the second set of card transaction events comprise a volume of second card transaction events different that a first volume of card transaction events of the first set of card transaction events, (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(d)(ll)(i))))
processing the second set of card transaction events using the same trained machine learning model and dynamically updated lookup table. (This step is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely applying a generic machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., predicting) - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea
are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are
well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination
of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Regarding Claim 11: see the rejection of claim 1 above. Same rationale applies.
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim recites another additional element “A system comprising: a network; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor among the one or more processors, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 20: see the rejection of claim 1 above. Same rationale applies.
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim recites another additional element “A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions which, when read by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claims 2 and 12
2A Prong 1:
generating the lookup table (This step for generating a lookup table is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation) with the aid of pen and paper.), using the recent reporting data comprising information related to most recent card tiers and most recent actual rates, wherein determining the previous variable rate and the previous fixed amount based at least in part on the respective predicted fee description identifier comprises:
performing a lookup on the lookup table to determine a particular rate among the most recent actual rates that is associated with the predicted fee description, (This step for performing a lookup table is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation).), and
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the predicted fee description identifier comprises one or more of a card tier, the card tier based at least in part on a card type and a product family, the card type comprising a consumer card or a corporate card, the product family comprising a particular category of card provided by the card network, a string of alphanumeric characters and/or symbols, a unique hash number or identifier, or a geographical location of the first set of card transaction events. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation further specifies the fee description.)
Regarding Claims 3
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the most recent card tiers comprises a most recent fee description from the recent reporting data for a merchant identifier and a credit card number. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation further specifies recent card tiers.)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the most recent actual rates comprise at least a most recent pair of values from the recent reporting data, the most recent pair of values comprising a particular variable rate and a particular fixed cost for a second pair of values, the second pair of values comprising a merchant identifier and a fee description. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation further specifies recent actual rates.)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the machine learning model accesses the lookup table to obtain the recent reporting data as input data to the machine learning model. (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(d)(ll)(i))))
Regarding Claims 6 and 16
2A Prong 1:
(The step for generating an prediction is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the machine learning model generates a prediction, the prediction comprising the respective predicted fee description identifier, the machine learning model comprising a machine learning classifier, wherein the machine learning classifier comprises a set of gradient boosted decision trees. (This step is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely applying a machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., predicting) - see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Regarding Claims 7 and 17
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the machine learning classifier receives a set of input features, the set of input features comprising one or more of a merchant identifier, bank identification number, last four numbers from a credit card number, or card type, the card type comprises one of a credit card, debit card, or prepaid card. (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(d)(ll)(i))))
Regarding Claims 8 and 18
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the lookup table comprises the previous variable rate and the previous fixed amount of one or more card transaction events of a most recent reporting data between a payment processor and a card network, the previous variable rate and the previous fixed amount being used by the card network for processing the one or more events based on a request from the payment processor on behalf of a merchant. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation further specifies the lookup table .)
Regarding Claims 9
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the training data comprises a number of samples for a pair of values from the recent reporting data, the pair of values comprising a merchant identifier and a credit card number. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation further specifies the training data.)
Regarding Claim 21
2A Prong 1:
wherein determining the predicted total cost for the first set of card transaction events comprises:
determining the predicted cost for each card transaction event of the first set of card transaction events based at least in part on the previous variable rate and theprevious fixed amount; (The step for determining cost is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation ).) and
determining the predicted total cost for the first set of card transaction events by aggregating the cost for each card transaction event of the first set of card transaction events. (The step for determining total cost is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation ).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Claim 22
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
wherein the volume of second card transaction events in the second set of card transaction events is less than the volume of first card transaction events in the first set of card transaction events. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation further specifies the number of events.)
Regarding Claim 23
2A Prong 1:
further comprising evaluating a result of the predicted cost against reported data indicating a respective actual event cost. (The step is practically implementable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., evaluation ).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang et al. (US 20190114627 A1) describes determining a foreign currency exchange rate. Yerradoddi et al. (US 20200320534 A1) describes predicting events associated with transactions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEWODROS E MENGISTU whose telephone number is (571)270-7714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, ABDULLAH KAWSAR can be reached at (571)270-3169. 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.
/TEWODROS E MENGISTU/Examiner, Art Unit 2127