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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed June 08, 2026
in which 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14- 17, and 19 are amended. Claims 4, 13, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-19, and 21-23 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
2. 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, 5-12, 14-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 19.
The claims 1-3, 5-9 and 21 are directed to a method, claims 10-12, 14-18 and 22 are directed to a system and claims 19 and 23 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 10 recites : a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive first funds management data associated with an entity operating in the funds management system, the first funds management data corresponding to a current accounting period; train a machine learning (ML) model to predict whether a budget deficit or a budget surplus will exist at an end of the current accounting period using training data generated from second funds management data associated with the entity, the second funds management data corresponding to one or more previous accounting periods, and wherein, to train the ML model, the at least one processor is further configured to: receive the second funds management data from the funds management system; and generate the training data from the second funds management data by extracting, from the second funds management data, a consumable amount, a consumed amount, and an available amount for each unique combination of values associated with a plurality of account assignment variables that define an availability control object within the funds management system; generate input data for the (ML) model from the first funds management data; provide the input data to the ML model; obtain, as an output from the ML model, a prediction of whether the budget deficit or the budget surplus will exist for the entity at the end of the current accounting period; and based on the prediction, control a downstream operation of the funds management system, wherein the downstream operation comprises at least one of: enabling processing of a purchase order based on the prediction specifying the budget deficit will exist, or enabling execution of a fund transfer based on the prediction specifying the budget surplus will exist. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are a process that covers Mental Processes as these limitations relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and use of a pen and paper). Predicting whether a budget deficit or a budget surplus will exist for the entity at the end of the current accounting period can be performed in the human mind. In addition, the claims can also be classified under Mathematical concepts. Determining a budget deficit or surplus is a mathematical calculation. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the recited additional elements (as shown above in italics), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the concepts that can be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, respectively. Accordingly, the claim 10 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a memory, processor, the funds management system and a machine learning (ML) model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The limitation, “train a machine learning (ML) model to predict whether a budget deficit or a budget surplus will exist at an end of the current accounting period using training data generated from second funds management data associated with the entity” amounts to generic computer implementation. The specification describes the additional elements to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar analysis can he extended to other independent claims 1 and 19 and hence the claims 1 and 19 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 10. In addition, claim 1 also recites computers and claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable device that amounts to generic computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-18 and 21-23 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical concepts” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 20 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1 or 10 or 19.
Claims 2 and 11 recite the additional elements of a supervised ML classifier. A supervised ML classifier, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 3 and 12 recite the additional elements of a generalized linear model supervised ML classifier. A generalized linear model supervised ML classifier, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14-19, and 21-23 are ineligible.
Prior art
3. Applicants’ amended claims have overcome the prior art of record and Applicants’ arguments regarding the prior art of record is persuasive; therefore the current art rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed dated 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 10-13), Applicant argues that, “claims 1, 10, and 19 as amended include additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a
practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The present claims are disclosing a business solution, not a technical solution to a technical problem. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a memory, processor, the funds management system and a machine learning (ML) model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The limitation, “train a machine learning (ML) model to predict whether a budget deficit or a budget surplus will exist at an end of the current accounting period using training data generated from second funds management data associated with the entity” amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
6. Applicant further states that (page 13), the instant claims are analogous to Example 48, claim 3.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and the claims in Example 48, claim 3. Claim 3 is eligible because the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application by specifically reciting how deep neural network (DNN) embedding clusters enable the individual transcription of separate speech signals from a mixed audio input. It moves past a generic instruction to use AI by providing a concrete improvement in audio processing and speech-separation technology. On the other hand, in the instant claims, machine learning is simply used as a tool to improve the abstract idea. Hence, Example 48, claim 3 is not applicable.
Examiner Request
7. The Applicant is request 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.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 lee 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 BHAVIN D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights