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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are currently 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 01/20/2026:
Regarding double patent rejection:
Due to claim amendments, the examiner withdraw the Double Patent rejection.
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “35 USC § 101 Rejections” in pages 9-11, that:
“Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 stand rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rejection is respectfully traversed. Applicant incorporates by reference the remarks filed August 28, 2025, and maintains the position that the pre-amendment claims are patent eligible. Nevertheless, to expedite the prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims to be more technically specific and respectfully submits that the claims are patent eligible for at least the additional reasons discussed below, particularly in light of USPTO December 5, 2025, memorandum on "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins" (Desjardins memo) … The claims fall squarely under the purview of the Desjardins memo because they recite a software improvement. More specifically, the claims recite the improvement of software-implemented of recategorizing of a miscategorized record by a computer application.
The specification describes the technical problem of mis-categorization by the existing computer application as follows … The specification-particularly in FIGS. 3 and 5 and corresponding paragraphs 36-60-describe using the multi-arm bandit framework for recategorizing a miscategorized record. Paras. 51-52 and Table 1 provide a numerical example illustrating the recategorization algorithm.
The claims reflect the technical improvement. For example, the claim 1 is structured as mis-categorization (technical problem arising from existing technology)->recategorization (technical solution) through the specific technical steps. The mis-categorization is reflected in the first two steps "generating..." and "automatically categorizing...." After the execution of the several technically specific steps, the claims recite the realization of the improvement as "in response to the percentage of population being determined to reach the threshold value, recategorizing, by the server, the plurality of financial transactions from the [miscategorized] first category to the [correct] second category as a final category." (emphasis added). The Office's assertions such as "transactions categorization is not reasonably understood as technology" (Final Action, 5) are not consistent with the Desjardins memo. Applicant's improvement is not to transactions categorization in a vacuum, but a software-implemented categorization ("automatically categorizing... by the computer application"). Because the Desjardins memo establishes that software improvement is equivalent to hardware improvement, the Office should properly interpret the claims as being directed to an improved software and deem the claims patent eligible. Therefore the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn and the claims be allowed for these additional reasons”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as in light of the Desjardins memo that stated “Moreover, because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Id. at 1336. Paragraph 21 of the Specification, which the Appellant cites, identifies improvements in training the machine learning model itself. Of course, such an assertion in the Specification alone is insufficient to support a patent eligibility determination, absent a subsequent determination that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, however, we are persuaded that the claims reflect such an improvement. For example, one improvement identified in the Specification is to "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks." Spec. ,¶ 21. The Specification also recites that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enables "reduced system complexity." Id. When evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation”
The claims are mere reciting a method and system to recategorize financial transactions following the steps of generating data; automatically categorizing data, presenting data list of know categories, determining different results, updating data and recategorizing steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “improvement of software-implemented of recategorizing of a miscategorized record by a computer application” suggested by Applicant. The examiner first notes that transactions categorization is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity of following instruction and rules to categorize transactions and update the categorization when needed. In addition, the claims can be considered to recite a mental process of categorizing and re-categorizing transaction based on analyzing received information.
Accordingly no improvement is shown to any hardware and/or software in the claims with utilizing a generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, accordingly do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
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, 3-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-9 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 10, 12-18 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recites the abstract idea of preform transactions categorization and re-categorization in response to received inputs, see specification [0005]. This idea is described by the steps of
Generating, a first category to be associated with corresponding financial transactions;
automatically categorizing a plurality of financial transactions the first category, the plurality of transactions received;
presenting the plurality of financial transactions with corresponding sets of transaction attributes and a list of known categories including the first category;
receiving user inputs that are each associated with re-categorizing the plurality of financial transactions from the first category to one or more other categories different from the first category;
determining based at least in part on a count of the first category and counts of the one or more other categories, a set of normalized ratios for the first category and the one or more other categories with respect to a total number of the plurality of financial transactions;
determining a second category for at least one financial transaction, the second category corresponding to a minimum value in the set of the normalized ratios;
determining a percentage of a population assigned with the second category for the plurality of the financial transactions during a time period;
determining whether the percentage of the population assigned with the second category for the respective financial transactions reaches a threshold value;
in response to the percentage of the population being determined not to exceed the threshold value, using a predetermined exploration-exploitation ratio to update the first category of the plurality of financial transactions to the second category in real time on an ongoing basis until the percentage of population reaches the threshold value; and
in response to the percentage of population being determined to reach the threshold value, recategorizing the plurality of financial transactions from the first category to the second category as a final category
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recite a method of following rules of series of instructions of how to categorize transactions of generating and automatically categorizing transactions in first category, presenting corresponding financial transaction with transaction attributes and list of known categories, receiving re-categorizing input to re-categorizing transactions to other category other than the first category, determining information, determining second category based on the determined information, determining second category, determining a percentage of a population assigned with the second category, recategorizing the transactions, update first category in real time. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to re-categorize transaction based on analyzed information. The claims are merely directed to generating and automatically categorizing transaction information (i.e., transaction and transactions category(ies)), analyze the information, displaying the result. The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a server in communication with a plurality of user computing devices through a network, a computer application executed on a server in communication with a plurality of user computing devices through a network, the plurality of user computing devices being associated with a plurality of users, a plurality of user interfaces of the plurality of user computing devices, iteratively executing, by the server, a multi-armed bandit model,
Claim 10: a server in communication with a plurality of user computing devices through a network, a non-transitory storage medium storing computer program instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program instructions to cause operations, a computer application executed on a server in communication with a plurality of user computing devices through a network, the plurality of user computing devices being associated with a plurality of users, a plurality of user interfaces of the plurality of user computing devices,
Claim 19: a server in communication with a plurality of user computing devices through a network, A non-transitory storage medium storing computer program instructions that when executed cause operations, a plurality of user interface of a plurality of user computing devices, iteratively executing a multi-armed bandit model,
The additional elements are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea, such as:
Claims 3 and 12 further narrowing the abstract idea found in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 by reciting such as, generating a dataset comprising different data, which is considered to be further reciting an abstract idea as explained for the independent claims 1, 10 and 19. This is part of the abstract idea and the fact that this step is tied to a generic computer such as, server, the recitation of the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 4 and 13 further narrowing the abstract idea found in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 by reciting such as, presenting each financial transaction with a set of transaction attributes and a list of known categories, which is considered to be further reciting an abstract idea as explained for the independent claims 1, 10 and 19. This is part of the abstract idea and the fact that this step is tied to a generic computer such as, user interface of a user computing device to execute displaying information, the recitation of the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 6 and 15 further narrowing the abstract idea found in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 by reciting such as, determining each re-categorization distribution of the first category and the one or more other categories for the respective financial transactions during a time period, which is considered to be further reciting an abstract idea as explained for the independent claims 1, 10 and 19. This is part of the abstract idea and the fact that this step is tied to a generic computer such as, server, the recitation of the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 7 and 16 further narrowing the abstract idea found in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 by reciting such as, determining the normalized ratio of each respective category for the respective financial transactions, which is considered to be further reciting an abstract idea as explained for the independent claims 1, 10 and 19. This is part of the abstract idea and the fact that this step is tied to a generic computer such as, server, the recitation of the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 8 and 17 further narrowing the abstract idea found in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 by reciting such as, determine the second category for respective financial transactions during a plurality of time periods, which is considered to be further reciting an abstract idea as explained for the independent claims 1, 10 and 19. This is part of the abstract idea and the fact that this step is tied to a generic computer such as, building, by the server, a reassignment model, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of preform automatic categorization in response to user inputs, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 5, 9, 14 and 18 are reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claims 1, 10 and 19 by further defining the type of information that is being used by the system (textual description, a date, and a transaction amount, a time period is a month). The data/information being claimed is directed to non-functional descriptive material that is part of the abstract idea of the claims in terms of the descriptive information about the information that is being provided to the system. The account information is part of the recognized abstract idea of the independent claim, with the computing device being treated in the same manner that was set forth for claims 1, 10 and 19. Nothing additional is claimed for consideration at the 2nd prong or step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
The claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627