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 March 17, 2026 in which claims 1 and 11 have been amended and claims 2, 12, 21, and 22 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Application 18/111,668 was filed on February 20, 2023.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to for the following informalities. The claims recite the phrase “avoiding sufficient funds”, which appears to be a typographical error. Examiner interprets the phrase to mean “avoiding insufficient funds”. Appropriate correction is requested.
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, 3-11, and 13-20 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 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 method for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising: receiving, by a facilitation agent, an account status associated with a bank account of a customer having a value card associated with financial transactions from the bank account;
receiving, by the facilitation agent, status update information comprising account transaction data and/or user profile information associated the bank account of the customer;
modifying, by the facilitation agent, the account status to determine an estimated account balance for the bank account based on the status update information;
receiving, by the facilitation agent, an indication of a financial transaction involving the value card between the customer and a merchant and for which an ACH request is to be issued with respect to the bank account;
employing, by the facilitation agent, and responsive to the indication of the financial transaction, a scoring algorithm based on the estimated account balance and an amount of the financial transaction to determine a success score indicative of a likelihood of avoiding an insufficient funds return for the ACH request; and
determining, by the facilitation agent, based on comparing the success score to a threshold success score, whether to approve the financial transaction,
wherein the success score is determined by a machine learning module trained to detect scheduling patterns associated with the activities of the customer with respect to the bank account to determine in sequence: a current success score to determine whether to immediately approve the financial transaction if the current success score is above the threshold success score,
a deferred success score only determined in response to the current success score being below the threshold success score, the deferred success score including a deferral instruction defining a time delay to wait prior to approving the financial transaction, and
a partial success score only determined in response to the deferred success score being below the threshold success score, the partial success score defining a partition of the amount of the financial transaction into a plurality of portions each to be approved at a different time,
wherein the partial success score includes multiple partial success scores each defining a different percentage partition of the amount of the financial transaction into a respective plurality of portions each to be approved at respective different times, and
wherein a subsequent partial success score among the multiple partial success scores is only calculated in response to a prior partial success score among the multiple partial success scores being below the threshold success score, and
wherein the partial success score is indicative of a likelihood of avoiding [in]sufficient funds for only a portion of the amount of the ACH request.
The claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate management of financial information and 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, the claims also recite the use of a machine learning module to detect scheduling patterns. This is a mathematical 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 method for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:”, and “a facilitation agent”, to perform the steps of “modifying”, “employing”, and “determining”, 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 exception into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate management of financial information and 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 [0051] discloses “In an example embodiment, the apparatus may include or otherwise be in communication with processing circuitry 100 that is configured to perform data processing, application execution and other processing and management services according to an example embodiment of the present invention. In one embodiment, the processing circuitry 100 may include a storage device (e.g., memory 104) and a processor 102 that may be in communication with or otherwise control a user interface 110 and a device interface 120. As such, the processing circuitry 100 may be embodied as a circuit chip (e.g., an integrated circuit chip) configured (e.g., with hardware, software or a combination of hardware and software) to perform operations described herein. However, in some embodiments, the processing circuitry 100 may be embodied as a portion of a server, computer, laptop, workstation or even one of various mobile computing devices. In some embodiments, the processor 102 may be embodied as a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU). In situations where the processing circuitry 100 is embodied as a server or at a remotely located computing device, the user interface 110 may be disposed at another device (e.g., at a computer terminal) that may be in communication with the processing circuitry 100 via the device interface 120 and/or a network (e.g., network 30). Thus, in some cases, the connection of the user to the user interface 110 may actually occur via the network 30.”
Furthermore, the Specification at [0061] discloses “in some cases, the success prediction agent 70 may employ a machine learning module configured to employ machine learning in order to learn such patterns and information. In an example embodiment, information learned about a customer (or users or a user of the customer account 36 and value card 12) may be stored in a user or customer profile associated with the customer account 36, and may be used by the success prediction agent 70 and scoring algorithm 74 to calculate the success score 62.”
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 method for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:”, and “a facilitation agent”, to perform the steps of “modifying”, “employing”, and “determining”, 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 facilitate management of financial information and 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 11 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus, it is rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of “An apparatus for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:”
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 3-10 and 13-20 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, 3-11, and 13-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and the Affidavit of Dr. David Whitmire filed on March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed March 17, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 based upon ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because:
Per MPEP 716, although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 is not entitled to any weight; however, facts supporting a basis for deciding that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 are entitled to some weight); In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case, "some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him." 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ at 524 (emphasis in original)).
Dr. Whitmire provides the opinion in paragraph 4 that the ‘668 application’s claims “are directed to a specific technical architecture for operating an ACH backed payments platform under delayed and incomplete information about account status, rather than to a generic business idea.” Dr. Whitmire describes it is the implemented policy steps that reduce insufficient funds returns while preserving approval rates and controlling computational costs. This opinion is not persuasive because the opinion is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claimed invention does not claim specific technical architecture. The steps being implemented by the claims are performed by “a facilitation agent” and the Specification describes the facilitation agent is merely a generic processor (see [0056], [0076], and [0080].) The opinion does not outweigh the explicit description that the claimed agent is merely a generic processor. The advantages described are not technical advantages, but advantages to the business and an improved abstract idea.
Similarly, in paragraph 5, Dr. Whitmire describes the business advantages compared to a fixed cap, however this would be merely improving an abstract idea and does not constitute a technological improvement. The affidavit does not explain or support that the computer or underlying technology is improved.
In paragraph 9, Dr. Whitmire opines that the inventors sought a “technical means – specifically, a payment platform and success prediction agent” to perform the claimed steps that have been identified as the abstract idea. However, this opinion does not support any technical improvements. Instead it supports that the abstract idea itself is improved.
In paragraph 10, Dr. Whitmire opines that because the scores are only calculated upon specific conditions, this saves computational resources. This is not persuasive as whether or not an abstract idea is complex or not does not provide an improvement to the computer or underlying technology.
With regard to the opinion in paragraphs 11-12 that the machine learning and computer are not merely applied, this is not persuasive because no details are provided that outweigh the mere high-level references in the specification.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 101 rejections for now pending claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20, Examiner notes the following:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees, however, and notes that the claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate management of financial information and 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, the claims also recite the use of a machine learning module to detect scheduling patterns. This is a mathematical calculation.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the applicant's argument that the amended features would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the additional elements of the computer system - a “A method for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:”, and “a facilitation agent”, to perform the steps of “modifying”, “employing”, and “determining” 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 facilitate management of financial information and a financial transaction. The claims invoke the “A method for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:”, and “a facilitation agent”, to perform the steps of “modifying”, “employing”, and “determining” 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 fundamental economic practice or mental process or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Additionally, Applicant argues that “the unique combination of tool and concept embodied by that which is claimed in the '668 application defines a new functionality in a specifically defined and structured computing platform that is not fairly construed as a generic computing technology. Not only is the ultimate function (i.e., minimizing overdraft fees) unique, but the collection of steps used to accomplish the ultimate function, including its combination with a machine learning tool, is also unique.”
Examiner notes that the stated problems of excessive resource consumption of computer resources, and the corresponding time delay in providing results to customers is not a technical problem, and the claimed solution is not a technical solution. In the claim, the solution of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate management of financial information and a financial transaction and the use of a machine learning module to detect scheduling patterns to provide a more efficient transaction process is part of the abstract idea, as it is merely involves data collection, manipulation, and analysis and the process could be completed manually or mentally or by pen and paper.
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 additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept. The additional elements of the computer system - a “A method for facilitating minimization of insufficient funds returns for automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:”, and “a facilitation agent”, are merely generic computer components performing their well-known basic functions of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate management of financial information and a financial transaction and the use of a machine learning module to detect scheduling patterns. Per the specification, the recited computer elements and machine learning steps and model are described only at a high level of generality, (see Spec. at paras. [0051] and [0061]). In view of the specification, the application of the computer elements and machine learning 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))
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 103 rejections for now pending claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20, Examiner notes that the rejection is withdrawn.
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
Prosecution Insights