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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in this application on November 28, 2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 28, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is prepared in response to claim amendments and Remarks submitted by Applicant on November 28, 2025 relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/219,608, filed on July 7, 2023. This application is a continuation of U.S. Application 14/975,843, filed on December 20, 2015, now abandoned. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are pending and have been examined. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted by Applicant on November 28, 2025 have been fully considered, however, are not persuasive.
With respect to the Section 101 rejection, Applicant asserts that even assuming for the sake of argument that the claims are directed to an abstract idea they are patent-eligible because the specific combination of limitations recited above are indicative of an inventive concept in that they present a technical solution of forecasting of average daily balance values that are not available which can then be used to determine additional average daily balances, recited in the Specification at Pars. 54-55. (Remarks, p. 11). Applicant further asserts that the innovation of Claim 1 is based on more than the mere use of a computer as it is the specific, claimed features of the ordered combination, particularly, “selecting one of the plurality of different models that converges to an optimal solution amongst the plurality of solutions generated by the plurality of different models; computing a portion of the future position of the user data accessed from the second server to transfer at a future date via execution of the selected model using the additional data by computing the projected average daily balance over a plurality of simulations, wherein when a trend of the average daily balance over the future period of time is negative, the projected average daily balance is computed based on a lower confidence value region of the average daily balance over the future period of time, wherein when the trend of the average daily balance over the future period of time is positive, the projected average daily balance is computed based on an upper confidence value region of the average daily balance over the future period of time; and transferring the computed portion of the future position of the user data from the stored value to the first data on the future date” that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Remarks, pp. 11-12). Applicant asserts that even though these features do not improve the underlying computer system functionality (e.g., improved processor or memory performance), they improve the underlying prediction technology. (Remarks, p. 12). Applicant further asserts, citing to Example 42 and PTAB decision 2017-009185 for support, that Claim 1 recites an improved solution that executes a computer model and predicts, using the computer-executable model, an average daily balance in the future for a payment account of a user which amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. (Remarks, pp. 12-15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claim are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer (as Applicant has conceded) or to technology. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. (See Section 101 rejection below). The Section 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, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are directed to a method. Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, on its face, each of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 8 recites determining an action to be performed on a first data account associated with a user, wherein the first data account is a user's bank account and the action is a prediction of a future bank balance of the user, transmit a request to access second data associated with the user over a network, accesses a stored value related to the second data associated with the user, wherein the stored value is an average daily bank balance for the user over a defined time period and the second data are daily bank balances for the user over the defined period; generating additional data from the second data, wherein the additional data comprises optimal parameter values for a plurality of different models for predicting a future position of the user data based on the additional data; dynamically generates the plurality of different models for predicting a future position of the user data based on the additional data by fitting the plurality of different models to the second data, wherein the future position of the user comprises a projected average daily balance for the user for a future period of time; executes, over a plurality of iterations, the plurality of different models to generate a plurality of solutions to a predefined operation, wherein the plurality of solutions comprise a plurality of forecasts of average daily balances for the user for the future period of time; selects one of the plurality of different models that converges to an optimal solution amongst the plurality of solutions generated by the plurality of different models; computes a portion of the future position of the user data to transfer at a future date via execution of a selected model using the additional data by computing the projected average daily balance over a plurality of simulations, wherein when a trend of the average daily balance over the future period of time is negative, the projected average daily balance is computed based on a lower confidence value region of the average daily balance over the future period of time, wherein when the trend of the average daily balance over the future period of time is positive, the projected average daily balance is computed based on an upper confidence value region of the average daily balance over the future period of time; and transfers the computed portion of the future position of the user data from the stored value to the first data account on the future date. Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of managing stored value from user data at one point in time to another point in time and transferring stored value (effectively making a payment) which involves commercial interactions falling under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” in MPEP 2106.04(a). Claims 1 and 15 recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 8 recites a first server, a second server, a plurality of different models, encryption keys and a network. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology because they only manipulate financial data. The claims do not invoke a particular machine as our guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, they do not transform matter as they only manipulate data which is not matter.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claims 2, 9 and 16 (retrieving the second data is based on a predetermined window of time of 90 days), Claims 3, 10 and 17 (executing the selected model using the retrieved second data based on the predetermined window of time to predict the portion of the future position), Claim 5, 12 and 19 (transmitting an electronic mail to an email account of the user with a notification of the transferring of the portion of the future position), Claims 6, 13 and 20 (outputting the portion of the future position of the user data to transfer to a device of the user via one or more of an electronic mail, an instant message, and a web interface) and Claims 7 and 14 (computing the portion of the future position of the user data comprises executing the selected model using at least ninety days of the retrieved second data) contain additional elements (which are underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and merely add specificity to the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
As such, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 M Sigmond can be reached on 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694