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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 10/09/2025, Amending Claims 1, and 6.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the new claims.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims,
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 5-6 of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong One
The above claim language as amended establishes a distributed processor architecture for the various claim steps, rather than being executed by a single processor. The distributed processors perform the end-to-end operations faster than a single processor because no one processor becomes burdened with performing all operations. For example, the fourth at least one processor can perform its analysis operations for a first request while the second at least one processor can perform its identifying operations for a second request, such that both requests will complete faster than if a single processor was tasked with all of the operations. This is a specific technical improvement over use with a single processor.
Distributed processors, with backup processors, also allow an individual process to continue if an upstream processor experiences a failure. For example, if the second at least one processor fails, the third at least one processor and downstream processors can still perform their operations for any requests received before the second at least one processor failed. Thus, partial work is preserved as compared to failure of a single processor where the entire effort can be lost.
This is a specific technical improvement over use with a single processor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SMART LIQUIDITY MANAGEMENT" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable " (Spec. figure 1).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 6 are recites the abstract idea of identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable. In example aspects, based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (I) Fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) (II) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner Note: referring back to applicant with regard to a first, second, third, fourth, fifth processor. In ¶[0041], “The processor 104 may be a general-purpose
processor or may be part of an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The
processor 104 may also be a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor chip, a
controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a state machine, or a
programmable logic device. The processor 104 may also be a logical circuit,
including a programmable gate array (PGA) such as a field programmable gate
array (FPGA), or another type of circuit that includes discrete gate and/or transistor
logic. The processor 104 may be a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics
processing unit (GPU), or both. Additionally, any processor described herein may
include multiple processors, parallel processors, or both. Multiple processors may
be included in, or coupled to, a single device or multiple devices”.
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation A non-transitory, a first, second, third, fourth and fifth processor, a memory, a communication interface are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, and 6 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, and 6 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “A non-transitory, a first, second, third, fourth and fifth processor, a memory, a communication interface”
Examiner asserts that A non-transitory, a first, second, third, fourth and fifth processor, a memory, a communication interface are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F .3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
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 1-2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-2, and 5 are directed to a method (process), and claims 6-7, and 10 are directed to a device (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claim 6 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method for smart liquidity management, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first at least one processor, a past transactional data set comprising data of at least one transaction;
identifying, by a second at least one processor, a first set of parameters and a second set of parameters based on the past transactional data set;
analyzing, by a third at least one processor, the first set of parameters, to automatically predict an amount receivable for an acquirer bank entity from at least one card network, for a period of time;
analyzing, by a fourth at least one processor, the second set of parameters, to automatically predict an amount payable from the acquirer bank entity to at least one merchant, for the period of time; and
identifying, by a fifth at least one processor, a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable;
implementing the smart liquidity plan by the acquirer bank maintaining an amount of liquidity in order to settle all the possible transactions for the at least one merchant for the period of time;
wherein the first set of parameters comprises the at least one card network, a settlement history of a corresponding card network, a currency, a region, and a total transaction amount for the corresponding card network based on at least one from among a date, a day of the week, and a special occasion;
wherein the second set of parameters comprises the at least one merchant, a transaction history of a corresponding merchant, a currency, a region, and a total transaction amount for the corresponding merchant based on at least one from among a date, a day of the week, and a special occasion;
wherein the first at least one processor, the second at least one processor, the third at least one processor, the fourth at least one processor and the fifth at least one processor are different processors from each other.
The Applicant's Specification titled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SMART LIQUIDITY MANAGEMENT" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable " (Spec. figure 1).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 6 are recites the abstract idea of identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable. In example aspects, based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (I) Fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) (II) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claims 7, and 12) wherein the past transactional data set further comprises at least one set of transactional parameters associated with each transaction from among the at least one transaction, wherein the at least one set of transactional parameters comprises an amount, a date, a day of week, occasional event data, a merchant, a currency, and a region.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 8, and 13) Cancelled
claim 4 (Similarly claims 9, and 14) Cancelled
claim 5 (Similarly claims 10, and 15) wherein the smart liquidity plan comprises at least one liquidity demand, wherein each of the at least one liquidity demand corresponds to a specific currency type.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 6.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 6 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A first, second, third, fourth, and fifth processor
Claim 6. A computing device, a first, second, third, fourth, and fifth processor, a memory, a communication interface,
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 6 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of A non-transitory, a first, second, third, fourth, and fifth processor, a memory, a communication interface, which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 6 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable. In example aspects, based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable. In example aspects, based on different data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 6 but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 6, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, and 6 include a non-transitory, a first, second, third, fourth, and fifth processor, a memory, a communication interface. Further, The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to identifying a smart liquidity plan for the acquirer bank entity based on the prediction of the amount receivable and the prediction of the amount payable.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Jayaram et al. US 2019/0156416: Risk and liquidity management systems and methods, Brereton et al. US 2015/0081483: Intraday cash flow optimization. Yao, Qian. "A systematic framework to understand central bank digital currency." Science China Information Sciences 61 (2018): 1-8. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “implementing the smart liquidity plan by the acquirer bank maintaining an amount of liquidity in order to settle all the possible transactions for the at least one merchant for the period of time; wherein the first set of parameters comprises the at least one card network, a settlement history of a corresponding card network, a currency, a region, and a total transaction amount for the corresponding card network based on at least one from among a date, a day of the week, and a special occasion; wherein the second set of parameters comprises the at least one merchant, a transaction history of a corresponding merchant, a currency, a region, and a total transaction amount for the corresponding merchant based on at least one from among a date, a day of the week, and a special occasion”. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. 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. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hecht et al. US 11,341,582: Multi-source liquidity tracking.
James et al. US 2018/0260894: Method and system for commingling aggregate prices and franchise prices.
Carlyle et al. US 2021/0174320: Systems and methods for reconciliation of financial transactions using auditable, distributed frameworks.
Rulison et al. US 2017/0091864: Liquidity position score.
Vergari EP3136330: Assessing credit risk.
Polaki WO2015/102009: Systems and methods for money transfer between inter entity accounts on a liquidity management structure.
Yao, Qian. "A systematic framework to understand central bank digital currency." Science China Information Sciences 61 (2018): 1-8.
Katzin et al. US 2012/0303425: Merchant-consumer bridging platform apparatuses, methods and systems.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624