DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered. No claims have been amended. Claims 3 and 19-54 were previously cancelled. No additional claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-18, and 55 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-18, and 55 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.
In sum, claims 1-2, 4-18, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine (1-2, 4-18, and 55). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of generating electronic data sheets based on user information and determining an amount of financial resources to be transferred by:
receiving user information for electronically filing or updating electronic data sheets that correspond to multiple users and respective domains of the multiple users;
concurrently maintaining records of past electronic activities by the multiple users;
electronically receiving, concurrently…, interchange data associated with interchanges executed by the multiple users;
automatically generating, concurrently…, the electronic data sheets for the multiple users based on the user information of the multiple users and the interchange data, the electronic data sheets indicating a finalized amount of resources to be transmitted to the respective domains;
electronically triggering a notification when a threshold is met for approaching a pre-allocated amount of resources;
electronically issuing an alert to electronically request additional resources from a particular user in response to resource amounts to be transmitted having exceeded an amount of resources received from the particular user;
electronically determining, concurrently…, an estimated amount of resources to be transmitted based on an analysis of the interchange data associated with the interchanges executed by the particular user; and
electronically adjusting an electronic value for the particular user according to a remittance risk determination that is based on the interchange data and the record of past electronic activities by the particular user, the adjusted electronic value indicating a maximum amount of resources that will transmit and receive protocols to enable the maximum amount of resources on behalf of the user, in which:
the risk determination is performed electronically by using risk thresholds that are proportional to an amount of credit ascertained as applicable to the particular user based on one or more items of evidence indicating credit worthiness in which the risk determination comprises executing a risk algorithm to update values in real time based on the record of past activities and checking an electronic ledger for an availability of resources and enables,…,to determine whether to electronically provide resources on behalf of the user without further contacting the user: and,…, is horizontally scalable such that a number of parallel courses can be multiplied and electronically executed in parallel by multiplying, in which the concurrent operations for multiple users are
performed by the,..,: implementing multiple parallel courses through the,…, wherein each parallel course corresponds to a respective user having a respective data sheet electronically processed concurrently:
maintaining the records of past electronic activities separately for each of the multiple users to enable user-specific risk determinations:
processing the interchange data received concurrently from devices of multiple users through the respective parallel courses: and
multiplying the number of components within the,…., to increase the number of parallel courses that can be executed simultaneously.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., generating electronic data sheets based on user information and determining an amount of financial resources to be transferred). Also, the user of a “risk algorithm” to determine risk using records of past activities also makes it so the recited abstract idea also falls within the category of mathematical concepts.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “platform,” “processor,” and “memory,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0034] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2, 4–18, and 55 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes utilizing a service engine that interfaces with the domain for transmitting the amount of resources. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes automatically generating and filing the electronic data sheet without any user intervention. Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes parallel processing as found in dependent claim 3 but used for the processing of the electronic data sheets. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes the parallel processing but in the context of processing respective datasheets for multiple users. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes notifying electronically when the threshold is met for the a pre-allocated amount of resources. Dependent claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes increasing the electronic value or decreasing this value. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes using the platform to providing a specific amount of resources as long as it does not exceed a maximum amount of resources. Dependent claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes temporarily adjusting the electronic value based on risk determination. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes use of an algorithm to update VAT rules. Dependent claim 12 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes issuing an internal notification in response to the risk algorithm indicating that an amount of risk exceeds a threshold. Dependent claim 13 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes calculating a VAT amount. Dependent claim 14 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes issuing a notification for request of resources. Dependent claim 15 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes receiving the resources in response to the received notification. Dependent claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes reserving resources for allocating to the electronic data sheet. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes keeping track of how the user is trending compared to an allowance of resources. Dependent claim 18 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes the use of a processing system to transmit VAT resources to avoid direct transmission from the user of VAT resources. Dependent claim 55 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes how the number of parallel course are able to be multiplied.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on December 29, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements.
Applicant first argues that “First, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office's characterization of the claims as reciting "financial resources" is factually incorrect. The terms "financial," "finance," "money," or "currency" do not appear anywhere in the claim text. Instead, the claim broadly recites "resources" (e.g., "finalized amount of resources," "pre-allocated amount of resources").” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 2). The use of these terms is irrelevant in making the determination as to whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter. In this case, it is the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., generating electronic data sheets based on user information and determining an amount of financial resources to be transferred). Resources are being transferred and determined in terms their magnitude. This a crucial part of the invention. It would be false to suggest that this is some ancillary part of the invention when without it, none of the other limitations would have any meaning. Also, the user of a “risk algorithm” to determine risk using records of past activities also makes it so the recited abstract idea also falls within the category of mathematical concepts. Although the Applicant states it’s not “an economic calculation,” but rather a “technical control mechanism.” Examiner disagrees. An algorithm necessarily involves a mathematical calculation as its basis. Using this “risk algorithm” to come up with a risk determination which must calculate some value in order to determine the risk associated. Hence, the recited abstract idea also falls within the category of mathematical concepts.
Applicant also argues that “Additionally, the claims recite further details regarding the technical improvements to computer network operations and efficiency gains from concurrent processing, the horizontal scalability and parallel processing capabilities, risk algorithms, real-time processing, and automated determinations. These amendments are supported in the specification in at least paragraphs 5-6, which describe the technical improvements to computer network operations and efficiency gains from concurrent processing, paragraphs 151, 167-168, which discuss horizontal scalability and parallel processing capabilities and paragraph 34, which references processors and memory implementation and various other sections which discuss risk algorithms, real-time processing, and automated determinations.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 5). However, this is not a technological improvement. Parallel processing using generic components and devoid of any specialized hardware is not a technological improvement. A mass scale of data gathering such as this is not a technological improvement. Even with the specificity shown here, that is just adding additional detail to the abstract idea itself. This feature is necessarily based on hardware, generic in nature, in order achieve the parallel processing capabilities the Applicant states.
Applicant also argues that “Moreover, this risk determination enables a concrete technological benefit: allowing ‘the computer system to determine whether to electronically provide resources on behalf of the user without further contacting the user.’” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 7). However, refraining from contacting the user is not a technological improvement. It is merely a business decision being implemented.
Applicant also argues that “Even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which we do not concede), the ordered combination provides significantly more. The specification confirms that the system can scale ‘from 64 parallel courses to 128 parallel courses, 256 parallel courses, 512 parallel courses, or more’ and is "capable of processing approximately 13,000 sellers or tax returns and 16-20 million transactions in a span of approximately 3-4 hours’ (paragraph 168). These concrete performance metrics demonstrate that the claims are directed to a technological implementation that provides results far beyond what could be achieved through abstract mental processes.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 7). However, even with the specificity shown here, this is just adding additional detail to the abstract idea itself with regards to use of parallel processing.
Thus, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Kavounas et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0006872) teaches an online platform that applies digital rules to previous relationship data and whether based on their applicability, if resources should have been remitted to the domain. Although the invention in Kavounas describes the use of this online platform to apply a set of rules to determine remittance of funds to an entity, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
“electronically triggering a notification when a threshold is met for approaching a pre-allocated amount of resources;
electronically issuing an alert to electronically request additional resources from a particular user in response to resource amounts to be transmitted having exceeded an amount of resources received from the particular user;
electronically determining, concurrently…., an estimated amount of resources to be transmitted based on an analysis of the interchange data associated with the interchanges executed by the particular user; and
electronically adjusting an electronic value for the particular user according to a remittance risk determination that is based on the interchange data and the record of past electronic activities by the particular user, the adjusted electronic value indicating a maximum amount of resources for which an online software platform will transmit and receive protocols to enable providing by the online software platform the maximum amount of resources on behalf of the user…”
However, Kavounas does not teach determining an estimated amount of resources to be transmitted based on the analysis of the interchange data and then electronically adjusting an electronic value for the user according to a remittance risk determination that is based on the interchange data and the record of past electronic activities by the user…” The further transmitting of a maximum amount of resources by the platform and the use of various protocols to do so is also not taught by Kavounas or the prior art.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696