DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 11/3/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 23 and 31 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-6, and 21-34 are currently pending.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more transaction account.” It appears it should be written “one or more transaction accounts.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Claims 1-6, and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 23 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 31 recites a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1, 23 and 31 recite a method comprising: receiving a request from a user over a network for a modification of a respective purchasing power associated with a respective transaction account; calculating a global purchasing capacity for the modification of the respective purchasing power associated with the respective transaction account, the global purchasing capacity based at least in part on the respective purchasing power of one or more transaction accounts; retrieving, from a data store, a risk profile; determining a risk exposure based at least in part on the risk profile and the global purchasing capacity; modifying the respective purchasing power of respective ones of the one or more transaction account, thereby generation a modified respective purchasing power for the one or more transaction account; in response to modifying the respective purchasing power, recalculating the global purchasing capacity thereby generating a recalculated global purchasing capacity; and storing the recalculated global purchasing capacity in the data store; in response to storing the recalculated global purchasing capacity, automatically generating a notification message, the notification message comprising the modified respective purchasing power of the respective ones of the one or more transaction accounts; and transmitting the notification message to a client application in real time.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions. Lastly, the claims are a fundamental economic practice, such as mitigating risk. Under menta processes, the claims are capable of being performed in the human mind or through pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a client application, system, computing device, processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, notification message, network and data store. The additional elements of a client application, system, computing device, processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, notification message, network and data store, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a client application, system, computing device, processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, notification message, network and data store) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here 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. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein the modification of the respective purchasing power associated with the respective transaction account further comprises: a value for the modification of the respective purchasing power; or a reallocation of the respective purchasing power from a second transaction account to a first transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein modifying the respective purchasing power is based at least in part on one or more of a max modification, the global purchasing capacity, or the risk exposure.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein determining the risk exposure further comprises: fetching the risk profile, the risk profile comprising a plurality of credit factors; and calculating the max modification based at least in part on the risk profile. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites further comprising: recalculating the respective purchasing power of at least one or more transaction accounts; sending a first notification, the first notification comprising a confirmation of the modification of the respective purchasing power; and sending a second notification, the second notification comprising at least one of the global purchasing capacity or the modified purchasing power of a first transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites further comprising: performing an authentication process; and identifying the one or more transaction accounts and the respective purchasing power associated with the respective transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 21 recites further comprising: receiving a request to split a transaction; receiving, from a client application, a first selection, the first selection identifying a selected transaction to split; analyzing the selected transaction to determine a split eligibility, wherein the split eligibility is based at least in part on one or more splitting rules; receiving a second selection from the client application, the second selection identifying a second transaction account for splitting the selected transaction; and splitting the selected transaction between a first transaction account and the second transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the application are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 22 recites further comprising: creating a new transaction on the second transaction account based at least in part on a split of the selected transaction between the first transaction account and the second transaction account; applying a credit to the first transaction account; and updating a purchasing power of the first transaction account and the second transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 24 recites wherein the modification of the respective purchasing power associated with the respective transaction account further comprises: a value for the modification of the respective purchasing power; or a reallocation of the respective purchasing power from a second transaction account to a first transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 25 recites wherein modifying the respective purchasing power is based at least in part on one or more of a max modification, the global purchasing capacity, or the risk exposure. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 26 recites fetch the risk profile, the risk profile comprising a plurality of credit factors; and calculate the max modification based at least in part on the risk profile. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 27 recites recalculate the respective purchasing power of at least one or more transaction accounts; send a first notification, the first notification comprising a confirmation of the modification of the respective purchasing power; and send a second notification, the second notification comprising at least one of the global purchasing capacity or the modified purchasing power of a first transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 28 recites perform an authentication process; and identify the one or more transaction accounts and the respective purchasing power associated with the respective transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 29 recites receive a request to split a transaction; receive, from a client application, a first selection, the first selection identifying a selected transaction to split; analyze the selected transaction to determine a split eligibility, wherein the split eligibility is based at least in part on one or more splitting rules; receive a second selection from the client application, the second selection identifying a second transaction account for splitting the selected transaction; and split the selected transaction between a first transaction account and the second transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and the additional elements of the application are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 23 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 30 recites create a new transaction on the second transaction account based at least in part on a split of the selected transaction between the first transaction account and the second transaction account; apply a credit to the first transaction account; and updating a purchasing power of the first transaction account and the second transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 23, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 23, supra.
Claim 32 recites wherein the modification of the respective purchasing power associated with the respective transaction account further comprises: a value for the modification of the respective purchasing power; or a reallocation of the respective purchasing power from a second transaction account to a first transaction account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 33 recites wherein modifying the respective purchasing power is based at least in part on one or more of a max modification, the global purchasing capacity, or the risk exposure. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Claim 34 recites fetch the risk profile, the risk profile comprising a plurality of credit factors; and calculate the max modification based at least in part on the risk profile. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 31, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 31, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are not abstract, and not methods of organizing human activity (Applicant arguments, pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. Throughout the applicants own specification, the claims deal with a “risk profile” and “risk exposure” for data collection from the data store in determining the user’s profile, spending habits and transaction history before modification of the credit line (Applicant specification, Para. 54, 62, 64, 65, 74, 83, 85, 86, 87, and 97). This is “mitigating risk,” which is a fundamental economic practice. Further, the claim limitations “retrieving, from a data store, a risk profile; determining a risk exposure based at least in part on the risk profile and the global purchasing capacity; modifying the respective purchasing power of respective ones of the one or more transaction account, thereby generating a modified respective purchasing power for the one or more transaction account; in response to modifying the respective purchasing power, recalculating the global purchasing capacity thereby generating a recalculated global purchasing capacity; and storing the recalculated global purchasing capacity in the data store; in response to storing the recalculated global purchasing capacity, automatically generating a notification message, the notification message comprising the modified respective purchasing power of the respective ones of the one or more transaction accounts,” all relate to “mitigating risk” regarding the users attempt to modify their respective transaction account.
The claims as recited are also capable of being performed in the human mind. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Applicant also argues that the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Applicant arguments, pg. 16), by reciting a technological solution to a technological problem. Examiner disagrees. 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. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant also argues that the claimed subject matter is a non-abstract improvement to computer technology, such as automated document processing. Examiner notes that 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.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application as demonstrated by Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Examiner disagrees. Example 42 addresses a method for transmitting notifications when medical records are updated. The Example is a network-based system that consolidates patient data, stores it, and sends automatic notifications. The claim as a “whole” integrated the method of organizing human activity into a practical application because it possessed additional elements that recited a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format, regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Unlike Example 42, the currently recited claims do nothing regarding standardized or unstandardized format transformation.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Pg. 22). Examiner disagrees. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept.” BSG, Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The “relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” Id (emphasis added). Rather, to properly evaluate the claims under Step Two of the Alice-Mayo standard, the abstract idea must be identified, set aside, and then “we ask . . . what else is there in the claims before us?” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012)) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). If that “what else” is the “application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques [i.e., generic computer equipment], the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” Id. at 1290–91 (emphasis added).
The claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve recalculating a user global purchasing power for transactions, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hammock US 20150193873 7/9/2015 G06Q40/02, discloses a system for risk based purchasing that determines risk allocation for an extra credit line in connection with a purchase, and generates the risk allocation notification.
Bermudez-Cisneros US 20190347666 11/14/2019 G06Q20/40 discloses real-time authentication procedures based on risk assessment, that receives a real-time notification that an account field is being modified, receives a high-risk transaction request, determines a risk score using a trained model, and then selects an authentication procedure and send notifications/instructions in real-time.
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693