DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 10, 11, and 13 are amended.
Claims 7-9, 12, 14, and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. See Remarks p. 5. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims recite steps for modeling risk of exceeding a reserve. The newly amended language reciting interbank settlement data and predictive modeling techniques, including VARMA, do not provide a practical application. Likewise, the language reciting residual error calculations and distributions does not provide a practical application. The recited method remains directed to determining a risk of exceeding a reserve. The newly amended language does state that required computational resources are reduced, but this appears to be a result of reducing the number of mathematical computations required in an error calculation. Simplifying a mathematical formula or equation is not a practical application, at least because mathematical concepts are ineligible abstract ideas. The newly amended language reciting notifying a system of risk merely reports the result of the risk determination. Therefore, the language regarding the notification is part of the abstract idea of determining a risk of exceeding a reserve.
The Applicant continues to compare the present claims to the claims in McRO. Again, the Examiner reiterates the position taken in the previous Office Action that the claims in McRO involve a process that is rooted in computer technology. In contrast, determining risk of exceeding a level of reserve funds is not rooted in computer technology. The claims in the Amdocs and Enfish cases also recited improvements in computer technology, contrary to the present claims.
The Applicant further submits that the claimed process cannot be performed in the human mind. See Remarks p. 8. The rejection, below, concludes that the claims fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the mental process category of abstract idea are moot.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to determining a risk of exceeding a reserve (as evidenced by the preamble of exemplary independent claim 1), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “obtain data of transfers;” “apply a predictive model;” “determine a maximum residual;” “model the maximum residuals;” “determine the level of risk that a future transfer between [financial institutions] will exceed [a] level of reserve;” and “notify a system that the level of risk exceeds [a] predetermined threshold.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of determining a risk of exceed a reserve that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of determining a risk of exceeding a reserve. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of determining a risk of exceed a reserve. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes predicting the probability that transactions or transfers will overdraw an account.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (circuitry in independent claim 1). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (circuitry in independent claim 1) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights