DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 30 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 4/16/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant’s filing on 4/16/2026.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 21 recites a method comprising:
determining a first spending limit previously established for the user with a merchant and user data for the user, wherein the first spending limit was previously established based on the electronic budget.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., establishing for the user), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., previously established for the user). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 1 does not recite that the system is configured to establish a first spending limit or is executing instructions to establish a first spending limit.
Claim 30 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 30 does not recite that the computer-readable medium causes a processor to establish a first spending limit.
Claim 21 recites a method comprising:
computing a second spending limit different from the first spending limit based on the change and the information using an artificial intelligence (Al) engine, wherein the Al engine comprises a machine learning (ML) model trained to compute different spending limits based on real-time user data and merchant data.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., training a machine learning model), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., a machine learning model trained to compute). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 1 does not recite that the system is configured to train a machine learning model or is executing instructions to train a machine learning model.
Claim 30 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 30 does not recite that the computer-readable medium causes a processor to establish a first spending limit.
Claim 23 recites a method comprising:
causing to be displayed in the application an option to adjust the spending limit and utilize less than a maximum amount of the computed second spending limit;
receiving a request to adjust the computed second spending limit; and
adjusting the computed second spending limit available via the application using the API.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material (i.e., what is displayed) and are not functionally involved in the steps recited (i.e., utilizing less than a maximum amount of the computed second spending limit). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 3 has similar issues.
4. 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 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
detecting a change to an … element by a user … of a service provider … of the user;
determining that the change adjusts an … budget established by the user …;
determining a first spending limit previously established for the user with a merchant and user data for the user, wherein the first spending limit was previously established based on the … budget;
accessing information associated with the merchant and the service provider;
computing a second spending limit different from the first spending limit based on the change and the information …;
generating an … output … based on the computed second spending limit;
transmitting the computed second spending limit to the user …;
… presenting the computed second spending limit … in response to the change;
monitoring … usage associated with the computed second spending limit; and
enforcing the computed second spending limit on a transaction processed …
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to enforce a spending plan which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, also covers a series of steps instructing a person how to manage financial transactions between a user and a merchant (as enforcement entails rejecting transactions) which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Examiner notes that “processing an application for financing a loan” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Services (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Dealertrack v. Huber (Fed. Cir. 2021).
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, also covers a series of steps instructing a person how to enforce a spending plan which qualifies as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Examiner notes that “budgeting” is a court-provided example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a memory (Claim(s) 1), processor(s) (Claim(s) 1), an interface element on a user interface (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an application (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), a user device (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an electronic budget (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), a machine-learning model (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an electronic card network (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), and application programming interface (API) (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-9 and 22-29 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1 and 20. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an electronic transaction (Claim(s) 2 and 22), a sliding interface button (Claim(s) 4 and 24) and a dynamic spending limitation graphic element (Claim(s) 10).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites a method comprising:
wherein, prior to the detecting the change, the method further comprises:
precomputing a plurality of states of the application, wherein at least one of the plurality of states is associated with the interface element and the first spending limit; and
loading the plurality of states to the application prior to an activation of the application on the user device.
What does this mean?
How can data (i.e., the plurality of states) be uploaded to an application when the application is inactive (i.e., prior to an activation on the user device)? If the application is inactive, the application is inert and non-functional (i.e., incapable of uploading the plurality of states).
Claim 5 has similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 21-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PG Pub. 2016/0071200) in view of Kruse (US Patent 11,775,977) and Tree (US PG Pub. 2007/0011093).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a method comprising:
detecting a change to an interface element (moved slider bar) entered by a user via an application of a service provider on a user device of the user, wherein the interface element is presented via a user interface of an application. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
determining that the change (move) adjusts an electronic budget (level of spending in a respective category of the budget) established by the user for the application. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
determining a first spending limit (current spending amount or first spending limit) previously established for the user with a merchant and user data (transaction history) for the user, wherein the first spending limit (current spending amount) was previously established based upon the budget. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 24 and 59-74);
accessing information associated with the merchant and the service provider (merchant data and transaction history). (see para. 46-50);
computing a second spending limit (lower spending limit) different from the first spending limit (current spending amount or first spending limit) based on the change (moved slider bar) and the information using an engine (processing server), wherein the engine (processing server) computes different spending limits based on user data and merchant data. (see para. 27 and 59-80);
generating an interface output of the user interface of the application (budget display page) based on the computed second spending limit. (see para. 67-68);
transmitting the computed second spending limit to the user device (computing device). (see para. 42-43);
configuring the user interface for presenting the computed spending limit via the interface element in response to the change (via the budget display page). (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 67-68);
monitoring, via an interface that integrates with an electronic card network (payment network), the usage associated with the second spending limit. (see para. 33 and 60-62)
enforcing the computed second spending limit on a transaction processed on the electronic card network. (see para. 33 and 60-62).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the engine is an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, wherein the AI engine comprises a trained machine learning model; the data is real-time data; or the interface is an application programming interface (API).
Kruse discloses a method comprising:
computing using an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, wherein the AI engine comprises a trained machine learning model based on real-time data (real-time transaction data). (see col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 39; col. 3, lines 25-41; col. 36, lines 10-32); and
monitoring, via an application programming interface (API) that integrates with an electronic card network (payment network), usage associated with a. (see col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate machine learning model(s) and application programming interface(s), as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing standard and conventional computerized elements to implement the method of Lee.
Lee does not teach a method wherein the monitored usage is usage of an application (i.e., payment application).
Tree discloses a method comprising:
monitoring, via an interface that integrates with an electronic card network, the usage of the application (payment application) associated with the second spending limit. (see para. 142-144); and
enforcing the computed second spending limit on a transaction processed on the electronic card network. (see para. 142-144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kruse to incorporate a payment application, as disclosed by Tree, as online payments are traditionally performed via an application.
Regarding Claim 22, Lee discloses a method comprising:
receiving an electronic transaction processing request for the transaction, wherein the enforcing comprises: (see para. 33 and 60-62);
determining that the transaction violates (exceeds) the computed second spending limit. (see para. 33 and 60-62); and
rejecting (denying) the electronic transaction processing request. (see para. 33 and 60-62).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the rejection is via an application programming interface (API).
Kruse discloses a method comprising communicating, via an application programming interface (API). (see col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Kruse and Tree to incorporate artificial application programming interface(s), as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing standard and conventional computerized elements to implement the method of Lee.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee discloses a method comprising:
causing to be displayed in the application an option to adjust the spending limit (via slider) and utilize less than a maximum amount of the computed second spending limit. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
receiving a request to adjust the computed spending limit. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74); and
adjusting the computed spending limit available via the application using the API. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74).
Lee does not explicitly teach a method wherein the adjusted spending limit is a second spending limit.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee, Kruse and Tree by duplicating claim elements contained in Lee (e.g., adjusting the first spending limit to create an adjusted first spending limit) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a adjusting the second spending limit to create an adjusted second spending limit) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 24, Lee discloses a method wherein the option comprises a sliding interface button able to adjust the computed spending limit via the application using the interface. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74).
Regarding Claim 25, Lee discloses a method comprising, prior to the detecting the change, the method further comprises:
precomputing a plurality of states (category budgets) of the application, wherein at least one of the plurality of states (category budgets) is associated with the interface element (moved slider bar). (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 40-41 and 63-74); and
loading the plurality of states to the application. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 40-41).
Lee does not explicitly teach a method comprising loading the plurality of states prior to an activation of the application on the user device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee to change the order for performance of the method steps wherein the change of order fails to produce a new or unexpected result. see MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding Claim 26, Lee discloses a method wherein the computing the second spending limit is further based on an expiration of a time period associated with the electronic budget. (see para. 60-62).
Regarding Claim 27, Lee discloses a method wherein the first spending limit and the second spending limit each comprise a transaction type limit based on one or more merchant category (limits for merchants or industries) for the merchant. (see para. 24).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the merchant category is a merchant category code (MCC).
Kruse discloses a method wherein the merchant category is a merchant category code (MCC). (see col. 34, lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Kruse and Tree to MCC(s), as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing a standard and conventional merchant identifier.
Regarding Claims 1-7, 10 and 30, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kruse and Lee, as applied to Claim 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Aidoo (US PG Pub. 2012/0109819).
Regarding Claim 28, Lee discloses a method wherein the computed second spending limit comprises an option (speed setting) for the computed spending limit (to reach the spending target) that is variable via one or more interface elements (the slider) in the application. (see fig. 7A-7B; para. 71).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the option is an installment plan option.
Aidoo discloses a method wherein the option is an installment plan option (see para. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Kruse and Tree by incorporating an installment plan, as disclosed by Aidoo, thereby enabling a user to customize a budget and an installment plan, as payments under an installment plan would be a component element of determining a budget.
Regarding Claim 29, Lee discloses a method wherein the plan (spending limit plan) comprises a plurality of payment parameters (suggested spending in each category) based on a user payment history (transaction history of payment transactions) for the user with the user data, and wherein the application displays a plurality of options based on the user payment history. (see fig. 6A-6B; para. 7, 31 and 63-68).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the plan is an installment plan option.
Aidoo discloses a method wherein the option is an installment plan option (see para. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Kruse, Tree and Aidoo by incorporating an installment plan, as disclosed by Aidoo, thereby utilizing payment history to generate a budget and an installment plan, as payments under an installment plan would be component elements of determining a budget.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
7. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 9-12.
Specifically, the Applicant argues:
The claims provide specific improvements in technology so as to be limited to a practical application that improves over prior systems. In particular, the amended claims recite specific technical improvements to electronic transaction processing technology. The specification describes the technical problem at paragraph [0002], explaining that "the user and online transaction processor may desire to enforce preemptive, adjustable, and/or real- time limits on account usage to reduce fund exposure to the account." See paragraph [0002] of the present application. To address this problem, the amended claims utilize an Al engine with a trained ML model to compute spending limits, transmit those limits to user devices, configure user interfaces based on the transmission, monitor usage via an API that integrates with an electronic card network, and enforce the spending limits on transactions processed on the electronic card network. Such limitations are directed to a technological solution to the aforementioned technical problem. See Arguments, p. 10 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, “reduc[ing] fund exposure to the account,” is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard financial problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
The specification does not provide any evidence that there is a technical problem (i.e., a technology-based problem) to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing and conventional technology was not capable of performing the claimed process (i.e., “preemptive, adjustable, and/or real- time limits on account usage”) but for the claimed technology-based solution.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that the functionality of a computer or conventional technology have been improved, or their technological capabilities have been expanded beyond their existing capabilities.
The court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., “preemptive, adjustable, and/or real- time limits on account usage to reduce fund exposure to the account”) that uses computers as tools.
Applicant further argues:
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include "[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." MPEP § 2106.05(a) further explains that this consideration has been referred to as "the search for a technological solution to a technological problem." The MPEP further provides Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (SME Examples) that demonstrate claim limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Here, the amended claims are analogous to SME Example 47, Claim 3 (Anomaly Detection), which was found eligible because it improves network security through real-time detection and remediation. Like Claim 3 in Example 47, the present claims detect conditions (e.g., changes to interface elements affecting electronic budgets), use a trained AI/ML model to compute appropriate responses (e.g., spending limits), and take specific remedial actions in real time (e.g., monitoring via an API that integrates with an electronic card network and enforcing spending limits on transactions processed on that network). See Arguments, pp. 11-12 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent.
Claim 3 of Example 47 was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
The additional elements in steps (d)-(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES), such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible. See SME Examples, p. 13 – emphasis added.
Claim 3 of Example 47 was found to have satisfied Step 2A Prong Two as the claimed invention reflects an improvement to a technical field of network intrusion detection. As noted by the Applicant, Example 47 “improves network security,” a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem. See Arguments, pp. 10-11.
Unlike Claim 3 of Example 47, there is no evidence that the claimed invention has improved technology, improved a technical field or addressed a technical problem. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of enforcing “preemptive, adjustable, and/or real- time limits on account usage to reduce fund exposure to the account” utilizing technology. Therefore, Example 47 does not apply.
Applicant further argues:
Similarly, the claims are analogous to SME Example 40 (Network Traffic Monitoring), which was found eligible because it improves technology through monitoring and taking action based on that monitoring. Here, the amended claims recite specific technical limitations that monitor in-application changes and network data for execution of specification actions. For example, the claims include limitations directed to computing spending limits using an AI engine with a trained ML model based on real-time user data and merchant data; transmitting computed limits to user devices; configuring user interfaces based on the computed limits; monitoring via an API that integrates with an electronic card network; and enforcing spending limits on transactions processed on the electronic card network. These limitations reflect the technical improvement described in the specification and impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea. See Arguments, p. 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that Claim 2 of Example 40 was deemed ineligible.
Claim 1 of Example 40 was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
Yes. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. See SME Examples, p. 11 – emphasis added.
Claim 1 of Example 10 was found to have satisfied Step 2A Prong Two as the claimed invention reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer (i.e., improved network monitoring) and addressed technical (i.e., technology-based) problems (i.e., excess traffic volume on a network and hinderance of network performance).
Unlike Claim 1 of Example 40, there is no evidence that the claimed invention has improved technology, improved a technical field or addressed a technical problem. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of enforcing “preemptive, adjustable, and/or real- time limits on account usage to reduce fund exposure to the account” utilizing technology. Therefore, Example 40 does not apply.
§103 Rejection
Applicant argues that the previously asserted prior art (Lee and Kruse) fail to teach or suggest “an AI engine comprising a machine learning model trained to compute different spending limits based on real-time user data and merchant data.” See Arguments, p. 12-14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a preliminary matter, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." See MPEP §2145(IV), citing In re Keller, Terry, and Davies, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, applicant refutes each prior art reference individually, rather than viewing them in combination, in light of the totality of their combined teachings.
Lee recites:
The receiving unit 202 may also be configured to receive a budget request from the consumer 102. The processing server 108 may further include a processing unit 204. The processing unit 204 may be configured to perform the functions of the processing server 108 discussed herein as will be apparent to persons having skill in the relevant art, including generating a budget for the account profile 210 based on the received budget request. The processing unit 204 may generate the budget for the account profile 210 based on the included transaction data and consumer data, and also based on transaction data included in one or more related account profiles 210. Related account profiles 210 may be identified by the processing unit 204 as being related to the account profile 210 for which the budget is being generated based on consumer data, transaction history, spending levels, categorical spending, etc.
The processing unit 204 may also be configured to generate one or more category budgets as part of the generating of a budget for the account profile 210. In such an instance, the category budget for each category may be based on a spending level for the category, which may be based on transaction history for the consumer 102 in that category (e.g., as stored in the account profile 210), specified by the consumer 102 in the budget request, and/or based on transaction history for that category in related account profiles 210.
The generation of a budget may use one or more rules or algorithms configured to identify categorized budgets based on the information discussed herein and in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/778,302, referenced above. The rules or algorithms may be stored in a memory 216 of the processing server 108. The memory 216 may be configured to store data suitable for performing the functions disclosed herein, such as the budgeting rules or algorithms, rules regarding the request and imposition of budgets or spending limits, program code for one or more application programs executed by the processing unit 204, etc. See para. 39-40 – emphasis added.
Lee discloses a system comprising an engine (i.e., processing server or processing unit) to compute (i.e., generate) different spending limits (i.e., category budgets) based on user data and merchant data (i.e., transaction history for the consumer, specified by the consumer, and/or based on transaction history for that category in related account profiles).
Lee does not explicitly teach a system wherein the engine is a trained machine learning model or the data is real-time data.
However, Kruse recites:
Certain technical challenges exist for processing VBAN-based transaction authorization requests. One technical challenge may include effectively verifying metadata associated with a transaction to a virtual bank account. Solutions presented by the embodiments disclosed herein to address this challenge may utilize machine-learning models trained based on historical transaction data to verify metadata. The machine-learning models may be configured to characterize and evaluate whether transactions should be authorized. Another technical challenge may include effectively implementing risk/fraud controls. Solutions presented by the embodiments disclosed herein to address this challenge may utilize a transaction risk model trained based on patterns identified in metadata of previous fraudulent transactions, in which the identified patterns may be correlated with high-risk usage or fraudulent transactions or attempted transactions. See col. 3, lines 25-40 – emphasis added.
In particular embodiments, the receiver processor may reconcile data from multiple sources. A primary source may be live data (e.g., real-time transaction data) being streamed in real-time, and a secondary source may be historical data (e.g., historical transaction data) aggregated and presented in bulk at a future time. In particular embodiments, the secondary source may serve as a form of ground-truth, taking precedence over the primary source in cases of poor congruence and incompleteness. In particular embodiments, the secondary source may not be sufficient to be solely relied upon when conducting business (e.g., processing transactions), particularly for decisions which may need to be made using real-time data (e.g., the primary source) that is immediately available. In particular embodiments, when the two data sources are incomplete and/or have poor congruence, reconciliation may be utilized to identify any improper, incomplete, or missing entries in either of the two data sources, and may remediate one or more of the identified entries. In particular embodiments, the receiver processor may determine incongruent data entries across the two sources, which may be, for example, business decisions that result from an originally improper entry from the primary source, and determine remediations that are necessary as a result of a final proper entry from the secondary source. The receiver processor may further substantiate the original entry from the primary source with more complete information that may be only available via the secondary source. In particular embodiments, the reconciliation logic to identify and remediate entries may require particular accuracy and/or efficiency for its utility to be realized. For example, incorrect reconciliation may potentially result in false positive remediations and downstream repercussions. As a result, the receiver processor may implement robust reconciliation logic for reconciling data from multiple sources. Although this disclosure describes reconciling particular data sources by particular processors in a particular manner, this disclosure contemplates reconciling any suitable data source by any suitable processor in any suitable manner. See col. 6, lines 15-53 – emphasis added.
Kruse discloses a system comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, wherein the AI engine comprises a machine learning (ML) model trained to perform computations based upon real-time data. See col. 3, lines 25-40; col. 6, lines 15-53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate machine learning model(s) and real-time data, as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing standard and conventional computerized elements to implement the method of Lee.
The §103 Rejection has been rewritten and the prior art remapped to account for the newly added and amended claim language.
8. Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights