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
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 12/5/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 18
Canceled claims: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 20
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18 and 19
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to a system (claim 1), a method (claim 8) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 15). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 8, 15 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 8, 15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) receive, via the network interface, from a user device associated with a user profile of the plurality of user profiles, a first request to enroll in a service; (ii) receive, via the network interface, from the user device, a second request to link a first account associated with the user profile with a second account, wherein the second account is held at a first third party external to the provider institution and the second account includes a first parameter; (iii) generate a third account responsive to receiving the first request; (iv) link the first account associated with the user profile with a fourth account, wherein the fourth account is held at a second third party external to the provider institution and the fourth account includes a second parameter; (v) transmit, via a first third-party application programming interface (API), a request to couple the second account with the third account; (vi) receive, via the first third-party API, a reply to the request, (vii) transmit, via a second third-party API, a request to couple the fourth account with the third account, (viii) receive, via the second third-party API, a reply to the request, (ix) couple the third account with the first account, the second account, and the fourth account responsive to receiving the replies, (x) generate a unique identifier for the second account responsive to receiving the second request; (xi) assign the unique identifier to the second account; (xii) transmit, via the network interface, the unique identifier; (xiii) receive, via the network interface, a real-time resource transfer request associated with the second account, the resource transfer request including a transaction amount and the unique identifier; (xiv) determine an available amount of resources of the first account; (xv) compare the available amount of resources of the first account with the transaction amount;(xvi) determine, based on the comparison, that the available amount of resources within the first account is less than the transaction amount; (xvii) cause a transfer of an amount of resources from the first account to the third account, wherein the amount of resources transferred is less than the transaction amount;(xviii) and transmit, via the network interface, to the user device, a notification indicating that resources within the first account are insufficient to satisfy the resource transfer request under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity: mitigating risk but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claim 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a computing system, a database, at least one processing circuit, at least one processor, at least one memory, a first third-party computing system and a second third-party computing system nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to organizing human activity: mitigating risk. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of a computing system, a database, at least one processing circuit, at least one processor, at least one memory, a first third-party computing system and a second third-party computing system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a computing system, a database, at least one processing circuit, at least one processor, at least one memory, a first third-party computing system and a second third-party computing system.
The computing system, database, at least one processing circuit, at least one processor, at least one memory, first third-party computing system and second third-party computing system are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computing system, a database, at least one processing circuit, at least one processor, at least one memory, a first third-party computing system and a second third-party computing system, receive, via the network interface, from a user device associated with a user profile of the plurality of user profiles, a first request to enroll in a service; receive, via the network interface, from the user device, a second request to link a first account associated with the user profile with a second account, wherein the second account is held at a first third party external to the provider institution and the second account includes a first parameter; generate a third account responsive to receiving the first request; link the first account associated with the user profile with a fourth account, wherein the fourth account is held at a second third party external to the provider institution and the fourth account includes a second parameter; transmit, via a first third-party application programming interface (API), a request to couple the second account with the third account; receive, via the first third-party API, a reply to the request, transmit, via a second third-party API, a request to couple the fourth account with the third account, receive, via the second third-party API, a reply to the request, couple the third account with the first account, the second account, and the fourth account responsive to receiving the replies, generate a unique identifier for the second account responsive to receiving the second request; assign the unique identifier to the second account; transmit, via the network interface, the unique identifier; receive, via the network interface, a real-time resource transfer request associated with the second account, the resource transfer request including a transaction amount and the unique identifier; determine an available amount of resources of the first account; compare the available amount of resources of the first account with the transaction amount; determine, based on the comparison, that the available amount of resources within the first account is less than the transaction amount; cause a transfer of an amount of resources from the first account to the third account, wherein the amount of resources transferred is less than the transaction amount; and transmit, via the network interface, to the user device, a notification indicating that resources within the first account are insufficient to satisfy the resource transfer request, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18-19 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states “that the claims are not directed to any fundamental economic principles” (page 15). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea of settling balances across multiple accounts. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Applicant states that the Claims are directed to a practical application of any alleged judicial exception” (page 17). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. It is a business solution to a business problem of settling balances across multiple accounts. The Claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details to the abstract idea, they do not address a problem particular to computer networks and merely apply the abstract idea on general computer components. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and settling balances across multiple accounts is not an unconventional activity. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the spec, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
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 MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694