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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
3. The examiner contends that, under the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG, to determine the patent-eligibility of an application, a two- part analysis has to be conducted.
Part 1: it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Part 2A: Prong 1: (1) Determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or one of the judicial exceptions. Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. include:
1. Certain method of organizing human activity such as Fundamental Economic Practices, Commercial and Legal Interactions, or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
2. A mental process.
3. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Part 2A: Prong 2: determine if the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Part 2B: determine if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Analysis
4. Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is found that the claim indeed recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process - one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1), using claim 18 as the representative claim, it is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. For instance, the claim language “a method for a payment service platform; receive…historical transaction data (HDT) which includes historical transactions associated with different transaction classifications and different inputs….; for each historical transaction of each transaction classification, determining a repayment interval between a risk assessment date (RAD) and a repayment date, and determining a buffer interval between the RAD and an eligible date (ED) which is shorter than the repayment interval and satisfies a predetermined return date; for each transaction classification, determining, from the buffer intervals associated therewith, an initial buffer interval value, and adjusting the initial buffer interval value to generate a relevant buffer interval based on a predetermined buffer condition; receiving an advance service request having a calculation date which is for determining a plurality of eligible outstanding receivables; receive…a plurality of outstanding receivables associated with input from the freelancer processors indicating outstanding transactions of a freelancer as of the calculation date; based on an elapse of the calculation date from a risk assessment date of each outstanding transaction by at least the relevant buffer interval, selecting the eligible outstanding receivables from among the outstanding receivables; for each eligible outstanding receivable, based on an allowance for default risk associated with a transaction classification of the each eligible outstanding receivable, and further based on an outstanding concentrated risk due to proportion of the each eligible outstanding receivable in relation to the outstanding receivables, determining a receivable credit limit; and based on input from the freelancer processors indicating a freelancer credit limit associated with the freelancer and an aggregated total of the receivable credit limit of each eligible outstanding receivable, determining an outstanding balance limit associated with the freelancer as of the calculation date; …receive an input of an advance payment amount which is no more than the numerical outstanding balance limit associated with the freelancer; generating…a numerical outstanding balance limit value based on the determined outstanding balance limit associated with the freelancer; …generate a transfer instruction which is to cause a transfer of the advance amount to the freelancer;…output the transfer instruction to the payment service platform” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Similarly, the claimed limitations, above, are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Any actions that can be performed in the human mind is a mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the examiner contends that the claim recites a combination of additional elements including “a processor, the freelancer processors, and plurality of aggregating processors.” These additional elements, considered in the context of claim 1 as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they, with their already available basic functions, are simply being applied to the abstract idea and being used as tools in executing the claimed process. Further, the limitation “wherein an application programming interface (“API”) is disposed between the plurality of aggregating processors and the payment service platform” is merely recited to further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. Thus, it is determined that claim 18 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 18 are the generically recited “processor, the freelancer processors, and plurality of aggregating processors.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Furthermore, the limitations in the dependent claims are thus subject to the same analysis as in claim 18 and are rejected using the same rationale as in claim 18 above. More specifically, dependent claims 22 and 27-28 do not recite additional elements but merely further narrow the scope of the abstract idea. However, dependent claims 19-21, and 24-26 recite additional elements, but these additional elements comprise the analyses of data, which is nothing but the automation of mental tasks. See Benson, Bancorp and Cyberphone. Also see Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the examiner disagrees. It is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. For instance, the claim language “a method for a payment service platform; receive…historical transaction data (HDT) which includes historical transactions associated with different transaction classifications and different inputs….; for each historical transaction of each transaction classification, determining a repayment interval between a risk assessment date (RAD) and a repayment date, and determining a buffer interval between the RAD and an eligible date (ED) which is shorter than the repayment interval and satisfies a predetermined return date; for each transaction classification, determining, from the buffer intervals associated therewith, an initial buffer interval value, and adjusting the initial buffer interval value to generate a relevant buffer interval based on a predetermined buffer condition; receiving an advance service request having a calculation date which is for determining a plurality of eligible outstanding receivables; receive…a plurality of outstanding receivables associated with input from the freelancer processors indicating outstanding transactions of a freelancer as of the calculation date; based on an elapse of the calculation date from a risk assessment date of each outstanding transaction by at least the relevant buffer interval, selecting the eligible outstanding receivables from among the outstanding receivables; for each eligible outstanding receivable, based on an allowance for default risk associated with a transaction classification of the each eligible outstanding receivable, and further based on an outstanding concentrated risk due to proportion of the each eligible outstanding receivable in relation to the outstanding receivables, determining a receivable credit limit; and based on input from the freelancer processors indicating a freelancer credit limit associated with the freelancer and an aggregated total of the receivable credit limit of each eligible outstanding receivable, determining an outstanding balance limit associated with the freelancer as of the calculation date; …receive an input of an advance payment amount which is no more than the numerical outstanding balance limit associated with the freelancer; generating…a numerical outstanding balance limit value based on the determined outstanding balance limit associated with the freelancer; …generate a transfer instruction which is to cause a transfer of the advance amount to the freelancer;…output the transfer instruction to the payment service platform” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Similarly, the claimed limitations, above, are steps that can be performed in the human mind. Any actions that can be performed in the human mind is a mental process. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
The examiner further contends that the limitation “wherein an application programming interface (“API”) is disposed between the plurality of aggregating processors and the payment service platform” is merely recited to further narrow the scope of the abstract idea.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the combination of elements is substantially more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner disagrees. It is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 18 are the generically recited “processor, the freelancer processors, and plurality of aggregating processors.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner further contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance.
Conclusion
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 OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695