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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 5/26/2026 has been considered.
Claims 4-6, 12-14, 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-18, 20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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, 7-11, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-18, 20, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claims 1, 9 and 17 as representative recite:
a data store configured to store profile data of a user which includes one or more claimed sources of income associated with the user and an account identifier of a financial account of the user with a third-party data source; and a processor configured to: establish a communication channel with the third-party data source via an application programming interface (API),
authenticate, via the API, the communication channel with the third-party data source; query data records, associated with the user based on the account identifier from the third-party data source via the established communication channel;
identify and remove duplicate financial transactions within the queried data records;
identify, in response to the query, an unclaimed source of income based on data values stored within the ingested queried data records, the unclaimed source of income differing from a source of income previously identified as claimed by the user;
execute a machine learning model on data values extracted from the queried data records to identify a counterparty entity of a transaction included in the queried data records, the machine learning model receives an input of a transaction string of the transaction, executes on the transaction string to identify the counterparty entity, and outputs an indication of the identified counterparty entity as a source of the unclaimed source of income;
display, via a user interface of a software application, an identifier of the identified unclaimed source of income including the identified counterparty entity and an input mechanism configured to, in response to a user input thereto, confirm the identified unclaimed source of income as a claimed source of income;
receive, via the user interface of the software application, a user input indicting one of a confirmation or non-confirmation of the identified unclaimed source of income as a claimed source of income;
store, in a memory, an indicator of whether the input mechanism in response to the user input identified unclaimed source of income via the input mechanism;
repeat the identifying and the displaying until a stopping condition is achieved;
generate a report including at least the identified unclaimed source of income and the indicator of whether the user confirmed the identified unclaimed source of income; and store the generated report in the memory.
These limitations recite collecting data from third party sources via API, compare data with user provided income data (claimed sources), identifies differences (unclaimed sources). Displays data for confirmation and generates report. This is primarily data gathering, analysis and reporting or collecting and comparting financial information and presenting results, which falls under organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, the limitations also recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). These limitations, as drafted, recite a simple mental process that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance with pen and paper but for the recitation of the generic computer components. For example, the claim encompasses a person manually reviews their bank statements from the past year, looking for any deposits that they might have forgotten about, such as side jobs or freelance payments. They might highlight or note down any transactions that seem unfamiliar or unclaimed. This would involve writing down the data and analyzing the information which may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 and claims 9 and 17 recite additional elements, including processor, data store, communication channel, API, software application, user interface, storage device, computer store report in memory, machine learning model. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The steps of “establishing, authenticating via API, querying and displaying are routine functions of standard computing environments. The machine learning model on transaction string is functional and it is only used as a tool to perform financial analysis. (SAP, Symantec). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 9 and 17 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, 15-16, 18, 20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-18, 20 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 9 and 17 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, considering sending, receiving, determining, etc. as additional, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 9, 17 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, 15-16, 18, 20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-18, 20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained for the reasons as set forth below.
The claims remain directed to collecting and analyzing financial records to identify and confirm unreported income, which is a financial activity and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues the amended claim is not directed to a mental process because it cannot be performed practically in the human mind. Examiner does not agree. For example, a person can review a transaction string, identify the payor, compare it with known income sources, recognize duplicate transactions and ask the user to confirm the result. The fact that the computer can perform the process faster or across more records does not prevent characterization as a mental process.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner states that the API, deduplication, ML model and UI merely automate financial information collection and analysis using generic computer functions. Establishing an API channel and querying records constitute data gathering, removing duplicates constitutes ordinary data preparation and the ML model recited only as analyzing a transaction string to produce a result of identifying a counterparty without a particular model architecture or improvement to computer or machine learning technology. Displaying the result, receiving confirmation through conventional interface controls, repeating the analysis and storing report are ordinary presentation and recordkeeping functions. Thus, the amendments merely implement the abstract financial verification process using generic computer technology and do not integrate it into a practical application.
The cited specification passages describe improvements to income verification and benefits administration not the computer functionality. Paragraphs [14-15] describe collecting financial records, determining eligibility for benefits, loans or rentals, which are financial objectives. Paragraph [40] and Fig. 2C merely display income information and receive confirmation through conventional interface controls. Paragraph [70] similarly recites API retrieval, deduplication, ML analysis without a particular technical implementation.
The 101 rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights