DETAILED ACTION
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 21.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-21 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant did not present any arguments as to why the claims overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not recite anything that qualifies as a practical application or significantly more.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as graduating a secured payment instrument to an unsecured payment instrument.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1-7), machine (claims 8-14), and manufacture/product (claims 15-21).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
detecting that an offer to graduate a secured dual-feature payment instrument to an unsecured dual-feature payment instrument is available,
wherein the secured dual-feature payment instrument is secured by a security deposit amount and is associated with a payment instrument account;
processing the security deposit amount and account information corresponding to the payment instrument account through [an algorithm] to identify a set of disbursement options for disbursement of the security deposit amount,
wherein [the algorithm] is trained using a dataset including sample user account information and corresponding sample disbursement records;
present the set of disbursement options;
detecting a selection of one or more elements to one or more disbursement options from the set of disbursement options,
wherein when the selection is detected, the security deposit amount is automatically disbursed to one or more endpoints corresponding to the one or more disbursement options;
continuously updating the dataset according to the selection and other disbursement option selections associated with different payment instrument accounts as the other disbursement option selections are made,
and processing new security deposit amounts and new account information corresponding to different payment instrument accounts associated with different secured dual-feature payment instruments through [the algorithm] to identify new sets of disbursement options for disbursement of the new security deposit amounts.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the claims recite a commercial/legal interaction using a process for converting/graduating a secured payment instrument to an unsecured payment instrument using machine learning. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of one or more processors, memory, instructions, a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, executable instructions, a computer system; a machine learning algorithm, an interface, a user computing device, user interface elements; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, 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 as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of one or more processors, memory, instructions, a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, executable instructions, a computer system; a machine learning algorithm, an interface, a user computing device, user interface elements; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a vehicle with generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0124-171], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694