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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR §1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on December 15, 2025 in this application after final rejection. 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in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated October 01, 2025 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. No additional claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1–20 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 1-20 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 1-20 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 directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 10-18), a machine (claims 1-9), and a process (claims 19-20), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). 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 obtaining contribution data and calculating a contribution amount relating to registered plan accounts by:
authenticating, by a single data authority in communication with a plurality of institutions associated with one or more registered plan accounts registered for a user with a registration organization, access to data associated with the user's one or more registered plan accounts at the plurality of institutions, wherein the plurality of institutions includes the registration organization;
obtaining, at a first request time and from the registration organization via the single data authority…initial contribution room data associated with funds eligible to be contributed into the one or more registered plan accounts;
obtaining, at a second request time subsequent to the first request time and from the plurality of institutions via the single data authority, account contribution data associated with the one or more registered plan accounts, the obtained account contribution data including data reflecting account contributions made between the first request time and the second request time;
providing, by the single data authority, the initial contribution room data and the account contribution data in an interoperable format;
calculating…an available contribution amount for the one or more registered plan accounts at a third time subsequent to the second request time based on the initial contribution room data…and based on the account contribution data; and
identifying, at the third time, a type of registered plan account not included in the one or more registered plan accounts, and
displaying, at the third time:
the contribution room based on the calculated available contribution amount for the one or more registered plan accounts, and
a link to enrolling in a registered plan account for the type of registered plan account not included in the one or more registered plan accounts.
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., obtaining contribution data and calculating a contribution amount relating to registered plan accounts). Independent claims 1 and 19 are nearly identical to independent claim 10 so the same analysis applies to those claims as well. Claim 1 also includes additional elements such a “non-transient computer-readable storage medium” which is being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 10.
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 “processor” 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 [0014] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2–9, 11-18, and 20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe calculating the available contribution amount based on an initial contribution room data. Dependent claims 3 and 12 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe providing an educational registered plan user interface which includes the contribution room. Dependent claims 4 and 13 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe gathering account contribution data from two separate accounts. Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe calculating the first available contribution amount data. Dependent claims 6 and 15 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe obtaining first account data and second account data from two different sources. Dependent claims 7 and 16 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe calculating a first available contribution amount for the first type of registered plan account based on initial contribution room data. Dependent claims 8 and 17 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe obtaining contribution data using an API. Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that they describe regularly receiving updates on the account contribution data via data push on the push API from the one or more data sources.
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 15, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims when considered as a whole, are not directed to a judicial exception, and are therefore directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 14). This invention has to do with providing available contribution amount data that is essential in determining which retirement plan for the user to enroll in based on this contribution data. This has to do with contributing a monetary amount to the user’s retirement plan, Clearly this falls under the purview of the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., obtaining contribution data and calculating a contribution amount relating to registered plan accounts).
Applicant also argues that Applicant submits that the 'single data authority', as recited in claim 1, provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field, consistent with the above considerations, and thereby integrates any purported judicial exceptions into a practical application.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 16). 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)). Merely gathering user financial data from various sources and then using this information to put forth plan options does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, generic components are being used to implement the abstract idea itself as the data is being gathered from various sources by first “authenticating” from a single authority this different data.
Applicant finally argues that “In this regard, claim 1 does not invoke the computer merely as a tool (e.g. "apply it"), but rather provides an improvement thereto as reflected through the use of a single data authority.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 17). However, merely using a “single data authority” to gather information from various accounts that the user may have in order to then use that information to obtain retirement plan options is not a technological improvement. There is no specialized hardware being used here or an improvement being made to something. It is mere data gathering, regardless of whether or not this is being done in real-time or not. Providing data in an interoperable format is not a technological improvement. Merely changing the format from one type of data to another based on the particular banking app being used is a business decision. There is nothing technologically being enhanced by the use of this format.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (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.
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