DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Sept. 3, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Each AIR should specifically explain how the interview will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. “Sounding out” the examiner is not permitted. See MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing interview practice.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. For any GRANTED Interview Request, the applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for denial.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Sept. 3, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–6 and 8–25 are now pending and examined with Claims 1, 8, and 15 in independent form.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Mar. 22, 2023, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Applicant's Amendment to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been reviewed and has overcome each and every rejection under § 112(a) previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed Mar. 3, 2025, [“Final Office Action"]. The rejection of Claims 1–6 and 8–25 under § 112(a) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues at Step 2A, Prong One, the amended claims do not recite the organizing human activity exception because they are directed to a specific computer-implemented technical improvement. Examiner properly characterizes a “payment transfer” in the last limitation as organizing human activity but “[n]othing in Step 2A Prong 1 requires designating every claim that culminates in a "payment transfer" as organizing human activity. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337-39 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality are not abstract even though they can be "used in" business contexts). Specifically, while one element (e.g., element F as referenced by The Office Action) causes a transfer of payment, the combination of the other features of the claims when considered together are inextricably tied to financial alert management and real-time remediation systems, electronic customer devices, and user interfaces thereof to improve such systems by creating a total view, customized specifically for the user. The specialized user interface displays a limited set of information provides mechanism not present in the existing art to perform ameliorative actions across a number of systems without the user having to use a separate website or application. … Further, the recited advance is how the system obtains and filters machine-staged ACH data that is not normally exposed to end users, and how that data is rendered and acted upon in a specific, constrained UI workflow that eliminates multi-application navigation, while enforcing an authenticated, time-sensitive remediation loop that the prior systems performed manually and too slowly.” Applicant’s Reply at 13–4.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments misconstrue the organizing human activity exception and fail to distinguish the claims from commercial practices. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) identifies “commercial or legal interaction” as a sub-grouping of the organizing human activity exception where the interaction includes “agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.” Here, the claimed method culminates in “a transfer of a payment,” which Applicant admits recites the organizing human activity exception. Applicant’s Reply at 13. The preceding steps also recite the same organizing human activity exception because the entire claim is structured about the commercial goal of a payment transfer.
“receiving … a request for Automated Clearing House (ACH) warehouse analytics (i.e., pending financial obligations)”;
“query to an ACH warehouse … [for] one or more transactions pending in the ACH warehouse and due to post to an account of the customer within a predetermined future interval”;
“displays the one or more transactions pending in the ACH warehouse and due to post to the account of the customer within the predetermined future interval and display [payment transaction] … element for selecting one or more of the transactions and … for selecting a payment decision”;
receive a payment decision and payment transaction selection;
generating and sending … a transfer of a payment for the selected one or more of the transactions;
These steps are a quintessential “commercial interaction” by identifying the back and forth between a “financial institution” and “customer” to resolve a payment obligation. Thus, every limitation builds towards a payment transfer and is logically conditioned on the prior steps using the “in response to” claim language. The fact that it is performed electronically does not change its character.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish is misplaced. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit found claims eligible because they were “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table.” 822 F.3d at 1336. The improvement in Enfish was to the computer’s data storage and retrieval functionality itself, such as “increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Id. at 1337. Here, by contrast, the alleged improvement is to business processes (overdraft remediation). The claims do not improve how computers store data, retrieve data, render user interfaces, or process payments. Rather, they use conventional computer functions (APIs. SSO authentication, UI display, payment messaging) to achieve a business result (faster overdraft resolution). Spec. ¶ 68.
Applicant argues the amended claims improve computers by:
(1) “obtain[ing] and filter[ing] machine-staged ACH data that is not normally exposed.” Applicant’s Reply at 13. Making ACH data available “earlier” to “giv[e] the payor more time to address the event” is a business decision about when to notify customers—not a technical improvement to data storage or retrieval. Spec. ¶ 68. Further, Applicant’s Specification teaches ACH warehouse access using an “API,” as amended, is conventional. Spec. ¶ 151. The “improvement” is making a business decision to expose pending transactions earlier but not a technical improvement of how data is stored or retrieved.
(2) “specific, constrained UI workflow that eliminates multi-application navigation.” Applicant’s Reply at 13. Applicant’s Specification explicitly teaches this alleged technical improvement is for user convenience. Spec. ¶ 24 (“payment options that are enabled directly from the platform, without the user having to use a separate website or application”). The specification emphasizes what a user does not have to do; not how the computer is improved. There is no discussion of reduced memory consumption form consolidated UI; improved rendering performance; novel display algorithms, etc. The UI workflow improvement is merely taking a well-known business practice of overdraft notification and payment and consolidating multiple steps into one interface—not improving how the UI renders, or how the computer manages multiple windows.
(3) “authenticated, time-sensitive remediation loop that the prior systems performed manually and too slowly.” Applicant’s Reply at 14. The claimed “SSO authentication” is described by name only in Spec. ¶¶ 24, 72. The customer clicks a link to an SSO login, is authenticated using a login and password, and redirected to the platform. Spec. ¶ 72. This is conventional authentication. No novel authentication protocol is described. No security improvement is claimed. The “timer-sensitive” characterization is business urgency as explained above. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 68. The deadline is imposed by the FI business rules. The urgency arises from business consequences (NSF fees, credit damage). Time pressure is a business problem. The “remediation loop” is a business workflow—not a technical architecture. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 26.
Applicant’s argument that the “combination the combination of the other features of the claims when considered together” is a technical advance is not persuasive. However, as the Federal Circuit held that the § 101 inquiry must “focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the claimed advance is enabling faster customer response to overdraft events through integrated electronic workflows. This is a business process improvement.
Applicant argues at Step 2A, Prong One, the amended claims do not recite a mental process “because the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” Applicant’s Reply at 14. Examiner agrees. However, as the claims still recite the organizing human activity exception as explained above, the claims still recite an exception.
Applicant argues at Step 2A, Prong Two, that the amended claims integrate any exception into a practical application because they include a security improvement that maintains single, authenticated, “cryptographically-bound browser session” throughout the customer workflow, reducing man-in-the-middle (MITM) ad phishing attacks, citing Spec. ¶ 24 and CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, 15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and data structures. The specification, ¶ 24, does not support a technical improvement for the same reasons as articulated in the response to Step 2A, Prong One, supra (See, Applicant argues the amended claims improve computers by:” point heading). CosmoKey is inapposite. The claims here recite no unconventional authentication protocol—only generic SSO, which the specification teaches as already existing at FIs. Spec. ¶¶ 24, 72.
Applicant argues at Step 2B that the claims show an inventive concept because the combination of ACH warehouse API access, adjacent GUI layout, on-the-fly savings computation, and immediate machine-readable payment instruction generation is non-conventional and not well-understood routine, and conventional. Applicant’s Reply at 16.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The calims lack significantly more because the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to well-understood routine and/or conventional activities in electronic financial services.
API access to financial data warehouses: Accessing core financial systems via APIs to retrieve transaction data is conventional in the fintech industry (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). The specification itself describes this as a routine option available from financial institutions (¶ 67). That the specific data retrieved (pending ACH entries) may not have been previously exposed does not render the technical mechanism (API query) unconventional. The API call itself is a generic communication technique.
GUI rendering and user interaction: Rendering multiple interface regions, displaying transaction data, and receiving user selections via display elements are generic user interface functions performed by conventional web browsers and mobile applications. The specification provides no evidence that “adjacent” rendering requires any unconventional coding, framework, or display technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) (“A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality”); MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Savings estimation and payment instruction configuration: The specification describes fee calculation as a table lookup based on transaction amount (¶ 82). This is a routine data processing step—indexing a pricing grid and performing arithmetic. The subsequent “automatically configuring… a machine-executable payment instruction” is a generic instruction generation step. The specification provides no details suggesting this configuration step departs from conventional payment processing logic.
Authenticated session and SSO: Single sign-on (SSO) authentication is ubiquitous in web-based financial services. The specification describes it as a feature already present at the financial institution (¶¶ 24, 72). Maintaining a session after authentication is standard session management in web applications. No unconventional session-binding, token management, or cryptographic technique is described.
Applicant argues the combination is non-conventional. However, merely combining well-understood, routine, conventional elements does not create an inventive concept unless the combination itself yields an unconventional result or operates in an unconventional manner. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the combination amounts to: (1) authenticate user via SSO; (2) query financial database via API; (3) display results in UI; (4) compute fee from pricing table; (5) generate payment instruction; (6) transmit payment message. This is a conventional online financial transaction workflow applied to a new data set (pending ACH entries). The specification provides no evidence that these steps, in combination, operate in an unexpected or unconventional manner.
Here, the specification repeatedly describes elements as conventional:
• ¶ 67: “application programming interface API for the FAMS 204 to obtain the electronic file” (describing API access as a known option)
• ¶ 72: “a hyperlink to a single sign-on SSO authentication interface of the payor financial institution” (describing SSO as existing at the institution)
• Fig. 5, step 506: “Determine service fee amount based on transaction amount” (routine table lookup)
Applicant has not provided evidence (e.g., technical publications, expert declarations) demonstrating that any claimed element or combination is unconventional in the fintech industry as of the filing date.
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 1–6 and 8–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–6 and 8–25 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–6 and 21–25 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 8–14 recite a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.” Claims 15–20 recite a “computer-implemented method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations and underline in further describing the action verbs of each step:
[A] 1. A system for providing alert management and real-time remediation, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
[B] receiving from a first user interface of an electronic customer device, a first electronic message comprising a request for Automated Clearing House (ACH) warehouse analytics;
[C] responsive to receiving the first electronic message, establishing an authenticated session for a customer via a single-sign-on (SSO) interface of a financial institution and, within that authenticated session, accessing an application programming interface (API) for a financial institution to send, over an authenticated API session, an electronic query to an ACH warehouse, the electronic query requesting information concerning one or more transactions pending in the ACH warehouse and due to post to an account of the customer within a predetermined future interval;
[D] responsive to receiving a response to the electronic query, transmitting, to the electronic customer device, a second user interface for display to the customer,
[D1] wherein the second user interface displays the one or more transactions pending in the ACH warehouse and due to post to the account of the customer within the predetermined future interval and [displays] display elements from which the customer may select, including a first display element for selecting one or more of the transactions, a second display element for selecting a payment decision, and a third display element to enable selection of a drop-down arrow
[E] wherein, responsive to a user interaction with the third display element,
[E1] displaying a third user interface adjacent to the second user interface, wherein the third user interface displays a savings estimation based on the payment decision selected by the user interaction;
[F] responsive to the customer selecting the payment decision and one of the transactions,
[F1] automatically configuring within the authenticated session, a machine- executable payment instruction that identifies a funding source selected from available sources and a posting priority for a selected transaction associated with the payment decision based on the savings estimation and
[F2] generating and sending a second electronic message, wherein the second electronic message causes a transfer of a payment for the selected one or more of the transactions.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “providing alert management and real-time remediation” in the preamble that culminates in “a transfer of a payment for the selected one or more of the transactions” in Limitation F, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because a payment transaction is a “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–E are the required steps to “transfer [ ] a payment for the selected one or more of the transactions,” and thus, recites the same exception. Id. The preceding steps, Limitations B–E, also recite the same organizing human activity exception because the entire claim is structured about the commercial goal of a payment transfer by identifying the back and forth between a “financial institution” and “customer” to resolve a payment obligation. Thus, every limitation builds towards a payment transfer and is logically conditioned on the prior steps using the “in response to” claim language. The fact that it is performed electronically does not change its character.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 1 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: one or more hardware processors; a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions; an electronic customer device with a first user interface, a second user interface displaying a first, second and third display element; a third user interface; an authenticated session; a single-sign-on (SSO) interface; application programming interface (API); an authenticated API session; an Automated Clearing House (ACH) warehouse; a machine- executable payment instruction; and “electronic” characterization of “query” and “message”.
Regarding one or more hardware processors; a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions; an electronic customer device with a first user interface, a second user interface displaying a first, second and third display element; a third user interface; an authenticated session; a single-sign-on (SSO) interface; application programming interface (API); an authenticated API session; an Automated Clearing House (ACH) warehouse; a machine- executable payment instruction; and “electronic” characterization of “query” and “message”, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 174 (“one or more general purpose microprocessors”), ¶¶179–183, Fig 20 (generic description of processors, memory, medium, bus, storage—standard computer architecture); ¶ 15 (“The negotiable instrument 100 may be any type of transaction check, ACH, point of sale, draft, or similar negotiable instrument … any known communication network 116”); ¶ 101 (“Any machine learning models and techniques may be used”); ¶ 187 (“not limited to any particular sequence”); ¶ 188 (“a circuit might be implemented utilizing any form of hardware, or a combination of hardware and software”); ¶ 24, 72 (generic SSO interface and authenticated session); ¶¶ 67, Fig. 16 (API access is a routine option and generic); Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (conventional GUI and UI elements, adjacent is a position descriptor not a technical feature).
Regarding the “electronic” characterization of query and message, Applicant’s Specification discloses in exemplary (generic) language that any known general-purpose computer device or special-purpose computer that is programmed to perform the steps of the claimed invention may be used. Spec. ¶¶ 174, 180, 185, Fig. 20. Therefore, Examiner interprets “electronically” as any known electronic customer device (or computer). Likewise, the claimed first, second, and third user interfaces as claimed is interpreted as an exemplary and known computer display. Spec., ¶ 177. The first, second, and third characterization merely referring to an instance of what is displayed. Id. In view of the specification, Fig. 10, an interface is merely a portion of the same display. Applicant’s Specification further describes the one or more hardware processors as “general purpose microprocessors.” Spec., ¶ 174. Regarding the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions, Applicant’s Specification again describes them using exemplary language as part of any known special-purpose computer. Spec., ¶¶ 175, 179, 181 (“any media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operate in a specific fashion”). This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow. Regarding the Automated Clearing House (ACH) warehouse, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe it except as a “database,” with the “ACH” characterization of warehouse (database) being merely a label for its intended function. Spec., ¶ 151. A “database” is described in any known way. Spec. ¶ 179. Regarding the first display element and the second display element, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them except at a high level as “quick select” buttons, common to generic interface (display) browsers and any computer application. Spec., ¶ 93. “[C]ircuit might be implemented utilizing any form of hardware, or a combination of hardware and software.” Spec. ¶ 188. “[S]hould be read to encompass conventional, traditional, normal, or standard technologies that may be available or known now or at any time in the future.” Spec. ¶ 190.
The known and generic computer equipment, here, performs functions that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 175. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow. The computer is used as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The displaying step fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements or a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Likewise, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality (i.e., the claimed “display elements”) is not a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(vi) (citing Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Limitation A describes the processor executing instructions stored in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium to perform the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic pieces of hardware and describe the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and storage medium, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–F describes the processer, medium, and instructions, performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 8 and 15 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 8 and 15 contain no additional limitations. Therefore, Independent Claims 8 and 15 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶¶ 67, 187 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 15, 21, 23, 24, 26, 67, 68, 72, 82, 93, 101, 151, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 20 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure1. Spec. ¶¶ 15, 21, 23, 24, 26, 67, 68, 72, 82, 93, 101, 151, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 20; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., one or more hardware processors; a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions; an electronic customer device with a first user interface, a second user interface displaying a first, second and third display element; a third user interface; an authenticated session; a single-sign-on (SSO) interface; application programming interface (API); an authenticated API session; an Automated Clearing House (ACH) warehouse; a machine- executable payment instruction; and “electronic” characterization of “query” and “message”.) are limited to generic computer components. See also, Response to § 101 Arguments, supra. These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) on a known computer (e.g., processor) and computer-related components (e.g., media). The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–F are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 8 and 15 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 8 and 15 contain no additional limitations. Therefore, Independent Claims 8 and 15 also do not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 9, 16, and 21 all recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain the additional element of: a third display element (Claim 2, 9, 16). For the same reasoning as explained for the first and second display elements in Step 2A, Prong Two, supra, the third display element, here, does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or inventive concept. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain the additional elements of: a link and authentication interface. Regarding the link and authentication interface, Applicant’s Specification describes it as a known “hyperlink to a single sign-on (SSO) authentication interface of the payor financial institution 202. The customer 206 may enter the link in a browser executing on the customer device 208 to reach the SSO interface, and may be authenticated by logging into the SSO interface, for example by providing a preset user ID and password.” Spec., ¶ 72. Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Likewise, the Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite a metal process exception. The “determining” step, but for the claimed computer claim language, can be practically performed in the human mind because authentication is so broad as to merely require a judgment by, for example, a bank teller. The remaining limitations merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 25 all recite “wherein” clauses that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional element of: a fourth display element. For the same reasoning as explained for Dependent Claims 2, 9, and 16, the third display element, here, does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or inventive concept. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of Independent Claims. While some individual features of Independent Claims may be shown in the prior art of record, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of the prior art to provide, alone or in combination, the invention of Independent Claims. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
Krietzman et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0026060) is pertinent because it discloses a Financial Alert Management System ("FAMS") for reducing the occurrence of a non-payment event of a negotiable instrument listing a monetary amount at a first financial institution.
Kunz et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,402,910 B1) is pertinent because it discloses systems and methods for managing cash flow, including incoming and outgoing transactions, and mitigating unconfirmed cash shortfalls for an entity's accounts.
Soccorsy et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,242,402 B1) is pertinent because it discloses systems and methods for initiating online collections that includes determining a current status of an account held by an account holder, determining a real-time financial profile of the account holder using information on the banking institution computer systems and third party information providers and displaying a customized status message based on the account holder's financial profile.
FOR: Int. Pub. No. WO 2008/128108 A1 is pertinent because it discloses data analysis tools that facilitate the optimization of an organization's payment processing program by deriving the savings that might be realized by the business paying the typical merchant with a credit or debit card, as opposed to cash or check.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (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 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").