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 .
Summary
This Final Office Action in response to the communication received on June 19, 2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are pending.
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 06/27/2019.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claims 1, 8, and 15 are acknowledged.
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, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 1-6 are processes and Claims 8-13, and 15-19 are machines). Accordingly step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
arranging at least one processor programmed to generate cash flow forecasts in communication with an electronic payment processing network, the electronic payment processing network comprising at least one merchant system, at least one transaction processing system, and at least one issuer system, the electronic payment processing network configured to process electronic payment transactions initiated using at least one payment device, the at least one processor configured to monitor electronic payment transactions processed by the electronic payment processing network while the electronic payment transactions are being processed (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a loan” and found “no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice” and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. and local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
monitoring, with the at least one processor, a plurality of first electronic payment transactions while they are being processed by the electronic payment processing network, monitoring the plurality of first electronic payment transactions comprising monitoring payable transaction data associated with the plurality of first electronic payment transactions, the plurality of first electronic payment transactions initiated with at least one payment device issued by the at least one issuer system to a merchant of the at least one merchant system, (a fundamental economic practice or principle and thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
monitoring, with the at least one processor, a plurality of second electronic payment transactions while they are being processed by the electronic payment processing network, monitoring the plurality of second electronic payment transactions comprising monitoring receivable transaction data associated with the plurality of second electronic payment transactions, the plurality of second electronic payment transactions between the merchant and a plurality of users (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) mathematical concept) based on each of the plurality of second electronic payment transactions during processing of each of the plurality of second electronic payment transactions by the electronic payment processing network (a fundamental economic practice or principle and thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
during processing of at least one payment transaction of the plurality of first electronic payment transactions and/or the plurality of second payment transactions, and while the at least one processor is in communication with the electronic payment processing network, automatically generating, with the at least one processor, a cash flow forecast associated with the merchant, the cash flow forecast generated based on the payable transaction data and the receivable transaction data, the cash flow forecast automatically generated by the at least one processor in near real-time relative to the at least one payment transaction being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) mathematical concepts to generate cash flows; MEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) fundamental economic practice, local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
displaying the cash flow forecast on a merchant device of the merchant system in near real-time relative to the at least one payment transaction being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing ;
after generating the cash flow forecast, monitoring, with the at least one processor, the electronic payment processing network for receipt of a new electronic payment transaction associated with the merchant, the new electronic payment transaction initiated with the at least one payment device issued to the merchant, or the new electronic payment transaction initiated between the merchant and a user (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a loan” and found “no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice” and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. and local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
in response to the electronic payment processing network receiving the new electronic payment transaction, during processing of the new electronic payment transaction, and while the at least one processor is in communication with the electronic payment processing network, automatically generating, with the at least one processor, an updated cash flow forecast in near real-time relative to the new electronic payment transaction being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing, the updated cash flow forecast generated based on transaction data associated with the new electronic payment transaction (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a loan” and found “no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice” and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. and local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
displaying the updated cash flow forecast on the merchant device of the merchant system in near real-time relative to the new electronic payment transaction being received by the electronic payment processing network processing (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a loan” and found “no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice” and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. and local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017));
in response to generating the updated cash flow forecast, automatically updating a payment device limit of the at least one payment device issued to the merchant (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a loan” and found “no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice” and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to a series of steps, in response to generated cash flow forecasts, generating and communicating a financial request, which is generally including a commercial interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions, and being performed using mathematical concepts. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, an electronic payment processing network, a merchant system, a transaction processing system, an issuer system, and a payment device, does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human interactions and mathematical concepts. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 8 and 15) is not integrated into a practical application. The recited additional elements are: a processor, an electronic payment processing network, a merchant system, a transaction processing system, an issuer system, and a payment device. These additional elements are generally merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality. Each of the additional elements are recited by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). As for the “automatically initiating” this is a typical manual activity (such as applying for a loan) but is claimed as being performed “automatically.” See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, monitoring payable transaction data being processed in an electronic payment processing network with at least one processor, processing electronic payment transactions by an electronic payment processing network initiated by a payment device, a processor in communication with the electronic payment processing network to generate a cash flow forecast, monitor receivable transaction data with at least one processor, the processor in communication with the electronic payment processing network, generating with the processor, the cash flow forecast, generating and communicating a request by the processor, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, Claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 15) is ineligible as being directed to abstract idea.
Claim 2 (and similarly Claims 9 and 16) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). and mathematical concepts to generate cash flows. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For the additional limitation of a processor, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 3 (and similarly Claim 10) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Claim 4 (and similarly Claims 11 and 17) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Claim 5 (and similarly Claims 12 and 18) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). and mathematical concepts to generate cash flows. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 6 (and similarly Claims 13 and 19) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). For the additional limitation of a processor, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f).
Prior Art
The prior arts of record fail to teach the overall combination as claimed by Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following:
arranging at least one processor programmed to generate cash flow forecasts in communication with an electronic payment processing network, the electronic payment processing network comprising at least one merchant system, at least one transaction processing system, and at least one issuer system, the electronic payment processing network configured to process electronic payment transactions initiated using at least one payment device, the at least one processor configured to monitor electronic payment transactions processed by the electronic payment processing network while the electronic payment transactions are being processed;
monitoring, with the at least one processor, a plurality of first electronic payment transactions while they are being processed by the electronic payment processing network, monitoring the plurality of first electronic payment transactions comprising monitoring payable transaction data associated with the plurality of first electronic payment transactions, the plurality of first electronic payment transactions initiated with at least one account issued by the at least one issuer system to a merchant of the at least one merchant system;
monitoring, with the at least one processor, a plurality of second electronic payment transactions while they are being processed by the electronic payment processing network, monitoring the plurality of second electronic payment transactions comprising monitoring receivable transaction data associated with the plurality of second electronic payment transactions, the plurality of second electronic payment transactions between the merchant and a plurality of users;
during processing of at least one payment transaction of the plurality of first electronic payment transactions and/or the plurality of second payment transactions, and while the at least one processor is in communication with the electronic payment processing network, automatically generating, with the at least one processor, a cash flow forecast associated with the merchant, the cash flow forecast generated based on the payable transaction data and the receivable transaction data, the cash flow forecast automatically generated by the at least one processor in near real-time relative to the at least one payment transaction being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing;
after generating the cash flow forecast, monitoring, with the at least one processor, the electronic payment processing network for receipt of a new electronic payment transaction associated with the merchant, the new electronic payment transaction initiated with the at least one account issued to the merchant, or the new electronic payment transaction initiated between the merchant and a user;
in response to the electronic payment processing network receiving the new electronic payment transaction, during processing of the new electronic payment transaction, and while the at least one processor is in communication with the electronic payment processing network, automatically generating, with the at least one processor, an updated cash flow forecast in near real-time relative to the new electronic payment transaction being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing, the updated cash flow forecast generated based on transaction data associated with the new electronic payment transaction;
in response to generating the cash flow forecast, automatically initiating, with the at least one processor, at least one of: generating and communicating a loan request for a loan generating and communicating a request for a payment device limit increase, or generating and communicating a purchase order. (Emphasis added to highlight features that distinguish over the prior art).
As further explained below, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
US Pat 10,489,865 “Dillard” discloses cash forecasting creates a plurality of event streams associated with a user of an online accounting service, identifies a first pattern in a first event stream that is a commitment and a second pattern in a second event stream that is a repeated pattern, generates a characterization for each of the plurality of event streams based on each identified pattern for the event stream, predicts one or more expected cash payments and one or more corresponding expected dates for each of the event streams using the characterization for the event stream and a forecasting model, receives a query related to cash flow through an application program interface (API), and responds to the query based on the one or more of the expected cash payments, the corresponding expected dates, and the one or more measures of uncertainty, to the query. However, Dillard fails to disclose generating a cash flow forecast associated with the merchant based on payable transaction data and receivable transaction data, wherein the cash flow forecast is generated in near real-time relative to at least one payment transaction of a plurality of first electronic payment transactions and a plurality of second electronic payment transactions being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing.
US Pat 10,990,980 “Reses’” teaches techniques for generating predictive models based on past transaction data and/or future-event data to predict: (i) when an account of user is expected to fall below a minimum balance associated with that user, and/or (ii) when an account has surplus funds that may safely be moved to a higher-yield account for some amount of time. Reses fails to teach generating a cash flow forecast associated with the merchant based on payable transaction data and receivable transaction data, wherein the cash flow forecast is generated in near real- time relative to at least one payment transaction of a plurality of first electronic payment transactions and a plurality of second electronic payment transactions being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing.
US Pat Pub 2009/0319421 “Mathis” teaches processing an invoice using a forecasting engine for forecasting a cash flow status related to a payment of the invoice. Mathis fails to teach generating a cash flow forecast associated with the merchant based on payable transaction data and receivable transaction data, wherein the cash flow forecast is generated in near real-time relative to at least one payment transaction of a plurality of first electronic payment transactions and a plurality of second electronic payment transactions being received by the electronic payment processing network for processing.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that in Example 21, claim 2, an Internet-centric challenge of "alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber's computer is offline" was defined. While the challenge in the present application is not identical, it has relevant similarities that lead to similar conclusions regarding eligibility. Instead of stock quotes, the present application involves making time-sensitive information available to the user as soon as possible. In the present application, the time-sensitive information involves electronic payment transactions of the merchant that are relevant to cash flow forecasts, and this integration of the forecast generator with the electronic payment processing network enables the forecast generator to make the time-sensitive payment data available to the merchant in the form of an updated cash flow forecast in near real- time relative to the payment network itself receiving the new electronic payment transaction. However, it is found that the majority of the claim is simply data analysis based on incoming payable/receivable payment data, some of which is received from the payment device. The “updating” of the payment device limit also appears to be abstract, as this looks to simply be updating a centrally stored amount of credit offered to a merchant (paragraph 0077 showing increased credit card limit based on good forecasts).
Next, Applicant argues the claim recites the ordered combination that includes an automatic update of a payment device limit of the payment device (of the merchant) in response to generating the updated cash flow forecast. This feature expands on the result of the cash flow forecast, and further integrates the amended independent claims into a practical application. This is found to be mere automation of a manual process. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) - Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627