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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed 11/18/2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 and cancelled claims 2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12 ,14, 16 and 18-20. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15 and 17 are pending for examination.
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.
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
2. Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of “contributing resources to an individual retirement account”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- management of personal finances). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claims 1 and 11 recite “….one or more external financial data sources”, “facilitate user interactions and validations….minimize reliance on agent…of human agents…contribution-related queries and contribution compliance with the Internal Revenue Service rules”, “receiving user data…, wherein the user data including personal data of the user and financial data of the user retrieved from the one or more external financial data sources and wherein the financial data includes user-specific individual retirement account contribution data”, “determining… at least one eligible contribution time period for contributing resources to an individual retirement account based upon the user data”, “the determination performed to reduce processing and avoid interaction with the agent…of the human agents”, ”wherein the at least one eligible contribution time period for contributing to the individual retirement account is at least one of a present tax year and a previous tax year”, “displaying… the at least one eligible contribution time period for contributing resources to the individual retirement account”, “receiving … a user selection of a desired contribution time period for contributing resources to the individual retirement account for the desired contribution time period”, ““determining … at least one predetermined contribution limit for the individual retirement account based upon the user data”, “wherein the determination avoids manual validation and interactions with the agent … of the human agents”, “providing… at least one… field associated with a desired resource contribution amount of resources to be contributed to the individual retirement account for the desired contribution time period”, “retrieving… the desired resource contribution amount to the individual retirement account for the desired contribution time period”, “retrieve, the user-specific individual retirement account contribution data for the desired contribution time period from the one or more external data sources”, “determine…if the desired resource contribution amount exceeds the at least one predetermined contribution limit to the individual retirement account for the desired contribution time period based on the user data including the user-specific individual retirement account contribution data for the desired contribution time period”, “initiate… a transfer of the desired resource contribution amount from a financial account of the user to the individual retirement account when the desired resource contribution amount is less than or equal to the at least one predetermined contribution limit for the individual retirement account for the desired contribution time period based on the suer data including the user-specific individual retirement account contribution data for the desired contribution time period”, “displaying…an error message….when the desired resource contribution amount for the desired contribution time period exceeds the at least one predetermined contribution limit for the desired contribution time period based on the user data including the user-specific individual retirement account contribution data for the desired contribution time period… avoiding manual intervention….”, “transmitting … when the desired resource contribution amount for the desired contribution time period exceeds at least one predetermined contribution limit for the desired contribution time period based upon the user data including the user-specific individual retirement account contribution data for the desired contribution time period ….prompts for adjustment to the desired resource contribution amount” and “receiving…an adjusted desired resource contribution amount for the desired contribution time period when the desired resource contribution amount for the desired contribution time period exceeds the at least one predetermined contribution limit for the desired time period based on the user data including the user-specific individual retirement account contribution data for the desired contribution time period”.
2. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
3. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 1 and 11 such as “providing a computing system including at least one processor and at least one memory”, “wherein the computer system executes computer-readable instructions for interaction with at least one user device”, “among the at least one user device, computing system…”, “a network connection operatively connecting the at least one user device, the computing system”, “to the at least one user device”, “devices”, “automating”, “wherein the at least one user device is configured to wirelessly communicate with the computing system via the user software application”, “via the user software application”, “via the graphical user interface”, “via the at least one processor”, “on the graphical interface of the at least one user device”, “input”, “via the network connection”, “…an electronic communication to the at least one user device” and “to the computer system” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “to manage network data flow”, “deploying a user software application” and “to reduce network traffic experienced by the computing system and minimize reliance on devices”, applicant does not describe how the managing, deploying and reducing are performed. Therefore, these functionalities are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application.
4. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
5. Hence, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
6. Depending claims 3, 5, 7-8, 13, 15 and 17 further recite “wherein the at least one predetermined contribution limit includes at least one of a standard contribution limit and a catch-up contribution limit (claims 3, 13)”, “displaying… at least one frequency for contributing resources to the individual retirement account and receiving … a user selection of a desired frequency for contributing resources to the individual retirement account (claims 5, 15)”, “wherein the at least one eligible contribution time period for contributing to the individual retirement account is present tax year when a time deadline has passed (claims 7, 17)”, “wherein the time deadline is a due date for filing Federal income tax returns for a previous tax year (claim 8)”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices: commercial or legal interactions; sale activities or behaviors; business relation”).
7. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 3, 5, 7-8, 13, 15 and 17, such as “on the graphical user interface/via the graphical user interface (claims 5 and 15) represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
8. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
9. Hence, depending claims 3, 5, 7-8, 13, 15 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “wherein the user software application facilitates user interactions and validations to reduce network traffic experienced by the computing system” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear how facilitating interactions and validations lead to reduce in network traffic. The claims are incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent from claims 1 and 11 inherit the same rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Edelman (6,064,986), directed to computer assisted architecture for account administration for retirement program.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1) the amended claims do not recite a judicial exception 2) the claims automate processes using technology and require action by a processor that cannot be applied in the mind 3) the claimed invention deploys a user software application that reduces network traffic and minimizing reliance on human agent devices. 4) the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the field and improves technical field of financial data processing. The Examiner disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of “contributing resources to an individual retirement account”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- management of personal finances). In response to applicant’s argument that the claims automate processes using processor, it is noted that simply use of a computer (processor) as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use do not make the claims 101 eligible. In response to applicant’s that the claimed invention reduces network traffic and minimizing reliance on human agent devices, applicant does not describe sufficient technological improvement to reduce network traffic and is therefore no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2016.05(f)(1)). In response to applicant’s argument the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional, applicant is reminded that if an examiner had previously concluded under Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity they should reevaluate such conclusion in Step B (please see at least MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and if such reevaluation indicates that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that an inventive concept is present. In this case, since the examiner has not concluded under Step 2A that any element is “insignificant extra-solution activity”, no reevaluation of whether the elements are “routine and conventional” is needed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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 DONLON can be reached at (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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692