DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 3 February 2026.
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 12, 14 – 18, and 20 are pending and have been examined; claims 4 – 6, 13, and 19 have been cancelled by Applicant.
This action has been made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims render the previous 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103, and 35 USC 112(b) rejections moot.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §101
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Indeed, the independent claims at least recite the gathering of data from a variety of databases, data structures, indexes, and/or the like (e.g., a resource advance account, a resource storage account, an electronic resource storage account, resource surplus transmission index, resource transmission database, and/or the like) to determine whether a prior resource transmission has already occurred either within a network or outside a network and/or outside an electronic network (e.g., via print media). Thus, by accessing each of these databases, accounts, indexes, and/or the like, the system compares and correlates various data stores associated with a user across a variety of networks while still maintaining compatibility and without data loss to determine whether a resource transmission has already occurred and whether a new resource transmission within the network or outside the network should be generated and transmitted. See, Published Application, paragraphs [0030] and [0032]. Even if the individual steps may be considered as mere pre or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in improving the transformation of data between distinct databases, where the data structures of the distinct databases have their data organization and attributes maintained. Id As such, the pending claims integrate a judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Therefore, the pending claims as a whole are integrated into a practical application, and are not "directed to" a judicial exception and is thus patent eligible”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In respect to the argument that “Thus, by accessing each of these databases, accounts, indexes, and/or the like, the system compares and correlates various data stores associated with a user across a variety of networks while still maintaining compatibility and without data loss to determine whether a resource transmission has already occurred and whether a new resource transmission within the network or outside the network should be generated and transmitted… the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in improving the transformation of data between distinct databases, where the data structures of the distinct databases have their data organization and attributes maintained”, none of these asserted improvements are recited in the claims, nor do the claims appear to actually produce said improvements, nor does Applicant’s disclosure seem to appear to support said improvements.
Applicant argues that the system compares and correlates various data stores associated with a user across a variety of networks while still maintaining compatibility and without data loss, however it Applicant’s claims do not appear to provide such. Applicant’s claims recite identifying an account, identifying a resource surplus, identifying a trigger based on said surplus, determining if the first account is associated with a second type of account, then determining if the second account is associated with a third type of account, identifying said account, and then transmitting a resource transmission (e.g., a money transfer, a payment, etc.), and then the steps of determining if an index has been created, and then using or creating an index and then determining if a resource transmission token (e.g., a payment, a check), has been issued. None of the claim limitations compare and correlate various data stores associated with a user across a variety of networks while still maintaining compatibility and without data loss. Further, Applicant’s disclosure makes no mention of ‘compatibility or data loss’, or the equivalents thereof. Additionally, the claim steps are not equivalent to the claim in Example 42, as it does not convert information to a standardized format, for example.
“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. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). MPEP 2106.05(a).
Here, Applicant’s disclosure fails to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Applicant further argues that “Indeed, the pending claims include several additional elements or combination of elements that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present. Specifically, the pending claims recite additional elements including, but not limited to, the bolded limitations above which comprise the collection, consolidation, and conversion of resource transmissions and resource surpluses from a variety of disparate accounts, databases, and indexes, to data mine and gather disparate unstructured data to in order to standardize this data for efficient and secure interrogation, which in turn reduces the amount of manual input, searching across networks, and interrogation across networks. See, Published Application, paragraphs [0030], [0032], and [0075]. Therefore, even if the Office continues to argue that the pending claims are "directed to" a judicial exception, Applicant respectfully asserts that the pending claims contain an inventive concept”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has not shown which claim elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. Turning to Applicant’s disclosure:
Paragraph [0030] recites “The system 130 may represent various forms of servers, such as web servers, database servers, file server, or the like, various forms of digital computing devices, such as laptops, desktops, video recorders, audio/video players, radios, workstations, or the like, or any other auxiliary network devices, such as wearable devices, Internet-of-things devices, electronic kiosk devices, mainframes, or the like, or any combination of the aforementioned” - none of these are elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field;
Paragraph [0032] recites “The network 110 may be a distributed network that is spread over different networks. This provides a single data communication network, which can be managed jointly or separately by each network. Besides shared communication within the network, the distributed network often also supports distributed processing. The network 110 may be a form of digital communication network such as a telecommunication network, a local area network ("LAN"), a wide area network ("WAN"), a global area network ("GAN"), the Internet, or any combination of the foregoing. The network 110 may be secure and/or unsecure and may also include wireless and/or wired and/or optical interconnection technology” – again, none of these are elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field; and
Paragraph [0070] recites “In some embodiments, and as shown in block 304, the process flow 300 may include the step of identifying, in an instance where the resource storage account is not associated with the electronic resource storage account, a resource transmission location associated with the resource advance account. By way of non-limiting example, the real-time resource transmission system may identify a resource transmission location associated with the resource advance account, where such a resource transmission location may be used for a resource transmission when an electronic resource storage account is unavailable. For instance, and where a user account does not have a real-time resource transmission distributed network account (an electronic resource storage account associated with the Zelle® network), the real-time resource transmission system may determine that another resource transmission should be used outside of the real-time resource transmission distributed network. In some embodiments, such a resource transmission may resource transmission token (such as a check, prepaid card, and/or the like), and transmit the resource transmission token to the resource transmission location. Further, and in some embodiments, the resource transmission location as used herein may refer to a geological location, such as a residential address, a current geolocation of the user, an address of a P.O. Box, a company/work address, and/or the like” – and again, none of these are elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field.
To the contrary, the claims and specification recite generic computer hardware performing generic computer activities. See, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure, paragraphs [0028]-[0048] which describe the computer hardware shown in Figures 1B and 1C.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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 – 3, 7 – 12, 14 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims are within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of:
a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon;
at least one processing device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations:
identify a resource advance account (i.e., a credit or loan account) ;
identify a resource surplus associated with the resource advance account (i.e., extra / overpayment/ positive balance / negative amount due);
identify, based on the resource surplus, a trigger comprising data of the resource surplus (i.e., refund if balance);
determine whether the resource advance account is associated with a resource storage account (i.e., checking / savings account),
wherein, in an instance where the resource advance account is associated with the resource storage account, identify the resource storage account (i.e., checking / savings account number);
determine, in response to identifying the resource storage account, whether the resource storage account is associated with an electronic resource storage account (i.e., P2P payment network, Zelle, Paypal, Venmo identifier),
wherein, in an instance where the resource storage account is associated with the electronic resource storage account, identify an electronic resource storage account identifier (i.e., P2P payment network, Zelle, Paypal, Venmo identifier); and
initiate, based on the identification of the electronic resource storage account identifier, a resource transmission based on the resource surplus to the electronic resource storage account associated with the electronic resource storage account identifier (i.e., send money from an account with a surplus to the P2P payment network, Zelle, Paypal, Venmo associated account );
determine whether a resource surplus transmission index comprising the resource advance account has been generated (i.e., comparing data),
wherein, in an instance where the resource surplus transmission index comprising the resource advance account has been generated, update the resource surplus transmission index with the resource transmission based on the resource surplus, or
wherein, in an instance where the resource surplus transmission index comprising the resource advance account has not been generated, generate the resource surplus transmission index with the resource transmission based on the resource surplus;
access at least one of the resource surplus transmission index or a resource transmission database, wherein the resource surplus transmission index comprises the resource transmission based on the resource surplus; and
determine, based on accessing at least one of the resource surplus transmission index or a resource transmission database, whether a resource transmission token has been generated for the resource surplus (i.e., comparing data),
wherein, in an instance where the resource transmission token has been generated for the resource surplus, halt the initiation of the resource transmission to the electronic resource storage account, or
wherein, in an instance where the resource transmission token has not been generated for the resource surplus, allow the initiation of the resource transmission to the electronic resource storage account.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers both certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic practices or principles / commercial or legal interactions) and mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. and 2106.04(a)(2) III.
The claim encompasses fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions as they recite the determination of whether an credit or loan account exists that has a surplus, determining if that account is associated with a savings or checking account, determining whether that account is linked to a P2P payment network, and using said network to refund the money to a user account. This is a fundamental economic and legal practice, e.g., returning money owed from a bank to a user.
Further, the claim limitations, as described above, encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, as a human could make all the determinations and identifications necessary to perform the refunding of a surplus1.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the additional limitations of a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon and at least one processing device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations, however these are recited at a high level of generality, and are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 2 – 9:
Claims 2 merely recites additional steps for identifying accounts and providing a refund / payment;
Claim 3 merely updates an account based on a refund / payment;
Claims 7 and 8 merely recite the ‘trigger’ or condition under which a refund / payment is provided; and
Claim 9 merely describes who operates the accounts, which does not affect the system nor the steps performed by it.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry2 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0028]-[0048], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation3.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Guedj; Marc US 20140114853 A1 Online payment system and method according to the mirror authorization server principle
Malhotra; Sandeep et al. US 20220261774 A1 Systems and Methods for Use in Transferring Funds Between Payment Accounts
Yamashita; Mark US 20210081984 A1 Systems And Methods For Overpayment Handling
Yan; Jun US 20220292468 A1 Systems And Methods For Streamlining Credit And/Or Debit Card Transactions Utilizing Blockchain Supported Credit Tokens And/Or Debit Tokens
Bowdon; Robert US 20240354881 A1 Automated System And Methods For Copious Electronic Asset Transfers
Riechers; Christina et al. US 11610208 B2 Intelligent management of authorization requests
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 ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 “Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010))”.
2 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
3 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).