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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Final office action is in response to applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed on 10/15/2025.
Priority Date: Prov.(06/07/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims: 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 16
New claims: 21-22
[previously]Canceled claims:2, 4, 10, 12, 17, and 19
Pending claims : 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 22
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, 5-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 9 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for data retrieval of accounts and transaction analysis.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 9 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 9 recites the limitations of:
receiving, by a multi-channel adapter, an account threshold defining a maximum number of accounts for which data is obtainable from an interaction channel;
receiving, by the multi-channel adapter, a processing time that is a length of time for the multi-channel adapter to receive the data from the interaction channel;
determining, by the multi-channel adapter, that the processing time exceeds a processing time threshold;
in response to determining that the processing time exceeds the processing time threshold, adjusting, by the multi-channel adapter, the account threshold to reduce a subsequent processing time for the multi-channel adapter to receive second data from the interaction channel and reduce latency in the multi-channel adapter receiving data as compared to a latency without adjusting the account threshold;
receiving, by the multi-channel adapter and from a client …, a request for data associated with a set of accounts from the interaction channel;
determining, by the multi-channel adapter, that a number of accounts in the set of accounts exceeds the adjusted account threshold;
in response to determining that the number of accounts exceeds the adjusted account threshold:
generating, by the multi-channel adapter, a first subset of the set of accounts, a number of accounts in the first subset being less than the adjusted account threshold;
generating, by the multi-channel adapter, a second subset of the set of accounts, the second subset comprising accounts in the set of accounts excluded from the first subset, and a number of accounts in the second subset being less than the adjusted account threshold; and
executing, by the multi-channel adapter, a first application programming interface (API) call to obtain first data for a first subset of the set of accounts from the interaction channel; and
executing, by the multi-channel adapter, a second application API call to obtain second data for a second subset of the set of accounts from the interaction channel, wherein executing the first API call and the second API call reduces latency in the multi-channel adapter receiving data as compared to a latency of executing a singular API call to obtain data for the set of accounts; and
causing, by the multi-channel adapter, a display of the data at a user interface of a client …, the data usable by the client … to analyze account activity.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for data retrieval of accounts and transaction analysis.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 9, and 16.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20-22 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20- 22 are directed towards,
using, receiving, by the multi-channel adapter, the first data in response to the first API call; and subsequent to receiving the first data, executing, by the multi-channel adapter, the second API call; wherein the operations further comprise; receiving, by the multi-channel adapter, a second account threshold defining another maximum number of accounts for which data is obtainable from a second interaction channel; executing a third API call to obtain third data from the second interaction channel; receiving, by the multi-channel adapter, an adjustment to the account threshold; and adjusting, by the multi-channel adapter, the first API call or the second API call to cause a modification to the data received from the interaction channel corresponding to the adjusted account threshold; and the operations further comprise receiving an indication of a type of data to be requested from the interaction channel, and wherein the client device is configured to generate a prediction of upcoming account activity.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20-22 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[Previously WITHDRWAN]
RESPONSE to ARGUMNTS
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/15/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be not persuasive:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues further in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite ‘Significantly More’ than abstract idea” and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two-2B].
Applicant also cited analogy with the court cases such as, EnFish, Amdocs .
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above/again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG>Step 2A-Prong 1 & Prong 2-Step-2B].
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014); Under Alice.
Applicant’s REMARKS:
“This paper is filed in response to the Final Office Action dated July 15, 2025 ("Office Action").
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are amended.;…;..;…;…; Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 17, and 19 are canceled, and no new matter has been added. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-22 are pending after entry of the claim amendments….;…; … Applicant submits….Allowance.” (Noted).
Patentability of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed non- statutory subject matter. At least for the purpose of expediting prosecution and without conceding to the propriety of the Office's rejections, Applicant herein amends independent claims 1, 9, and 16. For example, the independent claims are amended, to recite: …;…;…;…;
Applicant herein amends independent claims 1, 9, and 16. For example, independent claim 1 is amended, inter alia, to recite:
receiving, by the multi-channel adapter, a processing time…educ latency in the multi-channel adapter receiving data as compared to a latency without adjusting the account threshold;
Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments in light of the arguments presented below obviate the § 101 rejections.
At Step 2A, prong one, the Office Action alleged that claims 1, 9, and 16 recite abstract ideas. Although the Applicant respectfully disagrees, even assuming arguendo that this assessment is correct, claims 1, 9, and 16 still integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 16 are patent eligible.
The courts…;…; For Example EnFish…;…;In Ex. in Amdocs(Israel)…:…;…;…; Since claim 1 is directed to providing a technical solution to technical problems that are similar to those in Enfish and Amdocs, and the technical solution is clearly reflected in the claim, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Instead, any alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two. Therefore, claim 1 is patent eligible.
Because the other independent claims have similar features as claim 1, the other independent claims are patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claim 1. And because the remaining claims each depend from and further limit one of the independent claims, the remaining claims are patent eligible for at least the same reasons as the independent claims. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and allowance of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 is respectfully requested.”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from payment accounts is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:
(Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(receiving, by a multi-channel adapter, an account threshold…from an interaction channel; receiving, …a set of accounts from the interaction channel; receiving,…channel; determining,…processing time threshold; in response…adjusting the account threshold; determining, … accounts exceeds the adjusted account threshold; in response to determining … the account threshold: generating …the adjusted account threshold; and executing, …the set of accounts from the interaction channel, wherein executing the first API call…the set of accounts; and causing, …, a display of the data … to analyze account activity.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
receiving, by a multi-channel adapter, an account threshold…from an interaction channel; receiving, …a set of accounts from the interaction channel; receiving,…channel; determining,…processing time threshold; in response…adjusting the account threshold; determining, … accounts exceeds the adjusted account threshold: generating …the adjusted account threshold; in response to determining … the adjusted account threshold:
executing, …the set of accounts from the interaction channel, wherein executing the first API call…the set of accounts; and causing, …, a display of the data … to analyze account activity.
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “receiving… account threshold, determining…, executing, and causing… account activity”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0028]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims 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 (Claims: e.g., processor, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
What Applicant describes here is how any generic computer process data without stating how or if this transformation is intended to, in some way improves the function of the computer itself.
Examiner notes that the computer processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract.
In response to the Enfish argument, the claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement-a particular database technique-in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. In Enfish v. Microsoft, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision… that “the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory” which is “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” See also details in re TLI Communication LLC.
In Amdocs (Israel) Limited, the federal Circuit found software-based claims directed to specific, unconventional technological solutions, are patent eligible, as Distributed network-based filtering and aggregating platform; reporting on collection of usage information in distributed network: 841 F.3d 1288, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1288 (Fed.Cir. 2016); CAFC Appeal No. 15-118.
In Amdocs the courts construed “enhance” as being dependent upon the invention’s distributed architecture. 761 F.3d at 1338–40 (quoting ’065 patent at 7:51–57, 10:45–50, 7:7–8). “… We construed “enhance” as meaning “to apply a number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion.” The enhancing limitation depends not only on the invention’s distributed architecture, but also depends upon the network devices and gatherers—even though these may be generic—working together in a distributed manner. The patent explains that field enhancements are defined by network service providers for each field in which the network service provider wants to collect data. ’065 patent at 12:43–47. “A field enhancement specifies how the data obtained from the trigger of the enhancement procedure is processed before it is placed in a single field in the central database 175.” Id. at 11:2–5.”
In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in court cases such as, EnFish, and Amdocs (Israel) Limited..
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.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KAISHA et al (US 2020/0249801 A1) discloses Analysis Device Method…and Recording medium.
GUZIK THOMAS (WO 2018/005744 A1) discloses Dara Backup…Multiple cloud Computing Providers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691