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 .
Applicant filed a response dated September 23, 2025 in which claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, and 13-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Application 18/055,197 was filed on November 14, 2022 and claims benefit of 63/336,999 April 29, 2022.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The originally filed specification, as filed on November 14, 2022, describes a system of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to provide financial accounting and management or completion of a financial transaction. The amendments made in the September 23, 2025 amendment includes the additional steps of “the customized dynamic questionnaire comprising . . . auto-filled values determined in real time” and “the live data including currency exchange rates, payment network latency metrics, and current ledger confirmation times”, which were not present in the originally filed specification and are not disclosed in the paragraphs highlighted by Applicant in its remarks. As such, the introduction of these new steps constitutes new matter not supported by the original disclosure.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (MPEP 2106). The claims are directed to a method, system, and apparatus which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The recitation of the claimed invention is analyzed as follows, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions, the at least one processor, the at least one memory and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to: obtain a customized set of rules, wherein the customized set of rules are customized by a payee for delinquent account remediation;
identify a delinquent account having a past-due amount owed by a payer;
generate a customized dynamic questionnaire unique to the payer based on the delinquent account, the customized dynamic questionnaire comprising:
interactive fields, selectable options, and auto-filled values determined in real time from a transaction history of the payer, payment type, geographic location, and account status of the delinquent account, and
questionnaire content linked to corresponding settlement rules such that responses received from the payer modify parameters of the settlement rules prior to payment plan selection;
present the customized dynamic questionnaire to the payer via a secure, device-specific user interface;
receive, from the customized dynamic questionnaire, data from populated questionnaire fields, a first portion of the populated questionnaire fields being populated by the payer and a second portion of the populated questionnaire fields being populated automatically from live data from at least one external source, the live data including currency exchange rates, payment network latency metrics, and current ledger confirmation times;
modify the customized set of rules based on the data from the populated questionnaire fields;
apply the modified customized set of rules to account data associated with the delinquent account;
generate a plurality of candidate payment plans and a plurality of candidate payment methods for the payer based on the applied account data and stored payment plans;
rank the plurality of candidate payment plans based on historical performance metrics associated with the stored payment plans from which the candidate payment plans are derived, the historical performance metrics comprising acceptance rates, rejection rates, and stored indicators from prior offers;
select a payment method from the plurality of candidate payment methods based on the modified customized set of rules;
select a payment plan from the plurality candidate payment plans based on the ranking;
generate an offer comprising the selected payment plan and the selected payment method;
present the offer to the payer via a user interface device for acceptance or rejection, the offer providing at least one payment term for at least partially satisfying the past-due amount owed by the payer; and based on acceptance of the offer by the payer, change an account status of the payer from delinquent to non-delinquent.
The claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to provide financial accounting and management or completion of a financial transaction. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Finally, claims 7, 14, and 20 also recite the use of a machine learning component or model to determine a plurality of payment plan options. This is a mathematical concept or calculation.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1: YES).
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than reciting a “A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions, the at least one processor, the at least one memory and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to:”, “dynamic questionnaire comprising: interactive fields, selectable options, and auto-filled values determined in real time”, “secure, device-specific user interface”, “user interface device”, and “machine learning component”, to perform the steps of “obtaining”, “identifying”, “generating”, “presenting”, “modifying”, “applying”, “ranking”, and “selecting”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being a certain method for organizing human activity or mathematical calculation. The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to provide financial accounting and management or completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. The additional computer elements recited in the claim limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception utilizing generic computer components.
For example, the Specification at discloses “[0087] Although described in connection with an exemplary computing system environment, examples of the disclosure are capable of implementation with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments, configurations, or devices. [0088] Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the disclosure include, but are not limited to, mobile or portable computing devices (e.g., smartphones), personal computers, server computers, hand-held (e.g., tablet) or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, gaming consoles or controllers, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, mobile computing and/or communication devices in wearable or accessory form factors (e.g., watches, glasses, headsets, or earphones), network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like. In general, the disclosure is operable with any device with processing capability such that it can execute instructions such as those described herein. Such systems or devices may accept input from the user in any way, including from input devices such as a keyboard or pointing device, via gesture input, proximity input (such as by hovering), and/or via voice input.”
Furthermore, the Specification discloses “[0064] FIG. 5 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating a smart collect policy manager 110. The policy manager 110 in some examples includes a policy generator 502 for assisting and/or guiding a user in creating customized payment plan(s) 504, selecting payment method(s) 506 and/or creating customized rule(s) 508 for creating offers. In some examples, the policy generator 502 includes templates 518 and/or examples to assist the user in creating the payment plans and rules. In other examples, a machine learning 510 analyzes user-provided data to identify pattern(s) and auto-generate customized payment plan(s) and/or rules for the user. In these examples, the machine learning 510 is trained using training data 514 including sets of labeled questionnaires, payment plans and rules for users in the same or similar fields as the user. Feedback 516 from the user is utilized to fine-tune or generate update(s) 517 to the payment plans, rules, offers or other data generated by the machine learning. In still other examples, the machine learning creates and/or updates templates utilized by the user in creating the customized per-merchant payment plans, customized rules and/or customized offers.”
Additionally, the dynamic questionnaire comprising: interactive fields, selectable options, and auto-filled values determined in real time are merely adding pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as merely data gathering means of the user’s options to receive the resources, and the interface objects are generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. user interface icons). The specification says no more than the “[0044] The response(s) 210 to each of the question(s) 208 are provided by the payer via a user interface. The response(s) 210 in some examples are selected from a set of two or more predefined responses for each question, like a multiple-choice answer format. For example, a first question in the question(s) 208 can include an answer A or an answer B. The user selects either answer A or answer B. In other examples, the user enters a text-based answer into a field rather than selecting a pre-defined answer choice from a set of choices.” (See Spec. [0044]).
Thus, the specification supports that general purpose computers or computer components are utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, in viewing the additional elements both individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A prong two: No)
The claim does not include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions, the at least one processor, the at least one memory and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to:”, “dynamic questionnaire comprising: interactive fields, selectable options, and auto-filled values determined in real time”, “secure, device-specific user interface”, “user interface device”, and “machine learning component”, to perform the steps of “obtaining”, “identifying”, “generating”, “presenting”, “modifying”, “applying”, “ranking”, and “selecting”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to provide financial accounting and management or completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Such additional elements are determined to not contain an inventive concept according to MPEP 2106.05(f). It should be noted that (1) the “recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, and (2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice, commercial interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental process, or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1, thus, they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to provide financial accounting and management or completion of a financial transaction”.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “A computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions that, upon execution by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to at least:”.
For similar reasons as explained above with regard to claim 1, under Step 2A, prong two, these additional elements are merely applying generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Under Step 2B, when viewing the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception itself as the claimed computer-related technologies are mere tools for implementing the abstract idea as explained with regard to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely limit the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements beyond the cited abstract idea and the elements addressed above, thus, they do not amount to significantly more. The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 101 rejections for now pending claims 1-20, Examiner notes the following:
Applicant argues that the amended features would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner disagrees notes that the additional elements of the computer system - a “A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions, the at least one processor, the at least one memory and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to:”, “dynamic questionnaire comprising: interactive fields, selectable options, and auto-filled values determined in real time”, “secure, device-specific user interface”, “user interface device”, and “machine learning component”, to perform the steps of “obtaining”, “identifying”, “generating”, “presenting”, “modifying”, “applying”, “ranking”, and “selecting”, in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims at issue covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to provide financial accounting and management or completion of a financial transaction. The claims invoke the “A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions, the at least one processor, the at least one memory and the computer-readable instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to:”, “dynamic questionnaire comprising: interactive fields, selectable options, and auto-filled values determined in real time”, “secure, device-specific user interface”, “user interface device”, and “machine learning component”, to perform the steps of “obtaining”, “identifying”, “generating”, “presenting”, “modifying”, “applying”, “ranking”, and “selecting” merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a certain method of organizing human activity or mental process or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Finally, the Applicant argues that the claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees, however, and notes that, as explained above in the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, that the various specific, discrete steps carried out by the computer system are a routine, well-understood, and conventional function of a generic computer and, thus, are not sufficient to add significantly more. Per the specification, the recited computer elements and machine learning component or model are described only at a high level of generality, (see Spec. at paras. [0044], [0064], [0087], [0088]). In view of the specification, the application of the computer elements and machine learning component is merely being applied to the abstract idea.
The other limitations which are simply supporting the abstract idea correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity which do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Also, the functionality here is already present in the recited hardware, which is merely routine and conventional. Collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data is routine and conventional. There is no technological problem or solution identified. This is merely a business solution to transfer data between devices. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is available for review on Form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT J HASBROUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-3109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 Tran can be reached on 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 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.
/MERRITT J HASBROUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695