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 .
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 02/18/2026 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 18 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per RCE claim amendments and remarks filed on 02/19/2026 by Applicant, wherein only three Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are three independent claims reciting system, system and method claims. Claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 dependent claims respectively.
No IDS has been filed by the Applicant so far.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection in response to RCE claim amendments and remarks filed by the Applicant on 19 FEBRUARY 2026 for its original application of 13 JUNE 2023 that is titled: “Event-Triggered Earmarking via an Encrypted Session of a Credentialed System”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in the RCE on 02/19/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 11 and 17 are independent system, system and method claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 17: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps for event triggered earmarking, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1--YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: identifying an event associated with a threshold ratio, wherein event enables qualification [[]] for one or more previously inaccessible earmarking the capabilities, the event triggering at least one notification to be issued; [[]] receiving one or more security credentials to access the encrypted session associated with the user; transmitting, at a time predicted to correlate to prior automatic distribution, the at least one notification indicating that the user qualifies for the one or more previously inaccessible earmarking capabilities; receiving, an input [[]] indicating an intention to earmark one or more resources, wherein the input is received by the user, the earmarking including allocating the one or more resources to a credentialed location specific to the user. In other words, the claim describes methods (and systems) for earmarking via an encrypted session of a credentialed system identify an event associated with a threshold ratio, the event enabling a user to qualify for one or more previously inaccessible earmarking capabilities and triggering notification(s) to be issued via a credentialed system (per the Abstract of this application). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic processor and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1--YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: a credentialed system for an encrypted session, a user device and a user interface, plus a network, recited as in --- transmitting, via the credentialed system, the at least one notification to a user device being used to access the credentialed system, the at least one notification to be displayed via a user interface of the user device, the at least one notification indicating that the user qualifies for the one or more previously inaccessible earmarking capabilities; and receiving, across a network by the credentialed system and via a user interface of the user device, an input [[]] indicating an intention to earmark one or more resources, wherein the input is received by the user device as plaintext, encrypted, via a cryptographic algorithm, into ciphertext and transmitted across the network, the earmarking including allocating the one or more resources to a credentialed location from a plurality of credentialed locations specific to the user of the user device and associated with the credentialed system, the encrypting preventing unauthorized access during transmission; transforming, via the at least one processor and the cryptographic algorithm, an encoded ciphertext associated with the input from the user back into plaintext; allocating, based on the plaintext associated with the input [[]] and via the network, the one or more resources to the credentialed location; and adjusting, automatically and based on an earmark goal and via the network, the one or more resources allocated to the credentialed location. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The system, device, interface, and network in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor/s performing generic computer functions of processing data (as described above). These generic additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic system/s, device/s, interface/s and network/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2--NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim 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 with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic processor/s and/or computing device/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic system, device and interface over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these system, device, interface and/or network are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0053]-[0059] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0053] The computing system 206 may have various components similar to the user device 104, 106. For instance, in one example the computing system 206 may include at least one of each of a processing device 220, and a memory device 222 for use by the processing device 220, such as random access memory (RAM), and read-only memory (ROM). The illustrated +computing system 206 further includes a storage device 224 including at least one non-transitory storage medium, such as a microdrive, for long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term storage of computer-readable instructions 226 for execution by the processing device 220. For example, the instructions 226 can include instructions for an operating system and various applications or programs 230, of which the application 232 is represented as a particular example. The storage device 224 can store various other data 234, which can include, as non-limiting examples, cached data and files, such as those for user accounts, user profiles, enterprise data, files downloaded or received from other devices, and other data items preferred by the user and/or enterprise or required or related to any or all of the applications or programs 230. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0054] As illustrated, the computing system 206 includes an input/output system 236, which generally refers to, includes, and/or is operatively coupled with agent devices 212 and automated system(s) 214, as well as various other input and output devices. According to various embodiments, the computing system 206 may be used to distribute the digital data collection program as, for example a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) that can be accessed by the user device 104, 106 on a subscription basis via a web browser or mobile application. SaaS may provide a user 110 with the capability to use applications running on a cloud infrastructure of the enterprise system 200, where the applications are accessible using the user device 104, 106 via a thin client interface such as a web browser and the user 110 is not permitted to manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure (i.e., network, servers, operating systems, storage, or specific application capabilities that are not user-specific) of the enterprise system 200. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0055] In the illustrated example, a system intraconnect 238 electrically connects the various above-described components of the computing system 206. In some cases, the intraconnect 238 operatively couples components to one another, which indicates that the components may be directly or indirectly connected, such as by way of one or more intermediate components. The intraconnect 238, in various non-limiting examples, can include or represent, a system bus, a high-speed interface connecting the processing device 220 to the memory device 222, individual electrical connections among the components, and electrical conductive traces on a motherboard common to some or all of the above-described components of the user device 104, 106. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0056] The computing system 206, in the illustrated example, includes a communication interface 250, by which the computing system 206 communicates and conducts transactions with other devices and systems. The communication interface 250 may include digital signal processing circuitry and may provide two-way communications and data exchanges, for example wirelessly via wireless device 252, and for an additional or alternative example, via wired or docked communication by mechanical electrically conductive connector 254. Communications may be conducted via various modes or protocols, of which GSM voice calls, SMS, EMS, MMS messaging, TDMA, CDMA, PDC, WCDMA, CDMA2000, and GPRS, are all non-limiting and non-exclusive examples. Thus, communications can be conducted, for example, via the wireless device 252, which can be or include a radio-frequency transceiver, a Bluetooth device, Wi-Fi device, near-field communication device, and other transceivers. In addition, GPS may be included for navigation and location-related data exchanges, ingoing and/or outgoing. Communications may also, or alternatively, be conducted via the connector 254 for wired connections such as by USB, Ethernet, and other physically connected modes of data transfer. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0057] The processing device 220, in various examples, can operatively perform calculations, can process instructions for execution, and can manipulate information. The processing device 220 can execute machine-executable instructions stored in the storage device 224and/or memory device 222 to thereby perform methods and functions as described or implied herein, for example by one or more corresponding flow charts expressly provided or implied as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the subjects matters of these descriptions pertain. The processing device 220 can be or can include, as non-limiting examples, a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a graphics processing unit (GPU), a microcontroller, an application- specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (PLD), a digital signal processor (DSP), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a state machine, a controller, gated or transistor logic, discrete physical hardware components, and combinations thereof. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[0058] Furthermore, the computing system 206, may be or include a workstation, a server, or any other suitable device, including a set of servers, a cloud-based application or system, or any other suitable system, adapted to execute, for example any suitable operating system, including Linux, UNIX, Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and any known other operating system used on personal computer, central computing systems, phones, and other devices. ……………..
[0059] The user devices 104, 106, the agent devices 212, computing system 206, which may be one or any number centrally located or distributed, are in communication through one or more networks, referenced as network 258 in FIG. 1.”} ---
and indicate that the concept/s described by extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
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 elements 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 (Step 2B--NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 1 and independent system Claim 11, which perform the steps similar to those of independent method Claim 17. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 18-20, further narrow the independent method Claim 17 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the event associated with the threshold ratio comprises an equity value of real property reaching at least twenty percent; wherein the method further includes receiving, via the user interface, one or more additional inputs indicating an earmark goal, and generating a graphical report to be displayed, via the user interface, that depicts user progress toward the earmark goal; wherein the method further includes: displaying, via the user interface, a plurality of credentialed location options for the user to select, the plurality of credentialed location options including the credentialed location; and based on receiving the input from the user, creating the credentialed location specific to the user and assigning a unique identification number to the credentialed location; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 17. Similarly, dependent system Claims 2-10 and 12-16 also further narrow their independent system Claim 1 and independent system Claim 11, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE remarks and claim amendments dated 19 FEBRUARY 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that the new set of rejections under 35 USC §112, second paragraph that were added in the last Office Action have now been withdrawn, based on RCE claim amendments. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s RCE claim amendments and remarks of 02/19/2026.
In response to the Applicant’s RCE arguments of 02/19/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
With respect to Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 traversing 35 USC 101 rejection by claiming similarity to Example 46, Claim 2, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Example 46, Claim 2 was found eligible as it provides a means to cure “grass tetany” behavior/disease in livestock animals, while the instant application’s claims do not provide any such cure; but as argued by the Applicant, it recites --- {“identifying an event associated with a threshold ratio…” to operate the credentialed system. The credentialed system is used to transmit, at a time predicted to correlate to prior automatic distribution the notification to access the credentialed system.}. A print-out of search for “grass tetany in cattle”, as Appendix to this Office Action, shows the symptoms and treatment of this disease in livestock animals, and how it is dissimilar to the instant application’s claims.
In further response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 02/19/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Prong One”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent Claim 17 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” (based on at least transactions as in {“the mobile device 106 communicates and conducts transactions with other devices and systems”} in para [0045], and {“the computing system 206 communicates and conducts transactions with other devices and systems.”} in para [0056]), and “commercial or legal interactions” (based on at least interactions as in {“Interactions between an (business) enterprise system and a user device can be implemented as an interaction between a computing system of the enterprise, and a user device of a user.”} in para [0024]), as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships” (based on at least instructions as in {“Computer program instructions are configured to carry out operations of the present invention and may be or may incorporate assembler instructions, instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions, state-setting data, source code, and/or object code written in any combination of one or more programming languages.”} in para [0082]). Method Claim 17 describes methods for earmarking via an encrypted session of a credentialed system identify an event associated with a threshold ratio, the event enabling a user to qualify for one or more previously inaccessible earmarking capabilities and triggering notification(s) to be issued via a credentialed system (per Abstract of this application). Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for image transaction processing” recited in exemplary independent Claim 17 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Thus, it is clear that exemplary independent Claim 17 recites fundamental economic practices and/or commercial transactions that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent Claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 02/19/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Prong Two”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see at least MPEP 2106.05(f).
In further response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 02/19/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Step 2A”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea--see at least MPEP 2106.05(f). The instant application’s claims do not attempt to provide an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The claimed use of computer elements, as computing device/s and generic processor/s, is recited at a high level of generality is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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.
In further response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 02/19/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Step 2B”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, including RCE claim amendments of 02/19/2026, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The computing device(s) and generic processor(s) limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application, and don’t overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the previous Responses to Arguments from more than one previous Office Action/s are incorporated from the previous Office Actions by reference as recited in full here, but such previous Responses have not been retained herein for brevity, other than those for similarity to Example 47, Claim 3 and Example 21, Claim 2 retained below.
With respect to Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 traversing 35 USC 101 rejection by claiming similarity to Example 47, Claim 3, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Example 47, Claim 3 was found eligible not just because of reciting “cryptographic algorithm” as has been added by the Applicant in all 3 independent claims 1, 11 & 17, but it was found eligible based on limitations recited in steps (d)/(e)/(f) of Example 47, Claim 3 that recite an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection, and these steps clearly recite ---
“(d) detecting a source address associated with one or more malicious network packets in real time;
(e) dropping the one or more malicious packets in real time; and
(f) blocking future traffic from the source address.”
Examiner notes that steps (d)/(e)/(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, Claim 3 of Example 47 reflects the improvement in the limitation of step (d); and Examiner notes that the instant application does Not provide similar technical improvement Nor steps similar to (d)/(e)/(f) have been recited per claim amendments of 09/05/2025 in the instant application.
With respect to Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 traversing 35 USC 101 rejection by claiming similarity to Example 21, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Examiner notes that Applicant has some typographical errors in its Remarks about it stated as --- {“The claim evaluated in Example 21 are as follows: 1. A method of distributing stock quotes over a network to a remote subscriber computer, the method comprising: ”}. Examiner notes that Claim 1 of Example 21 was Not found to be eligible.
Secondly, Examiner notes that it was Claim 2 of Example 21 that was found to be eligible to overcome the 101 rejection via the following analysis ---
{“The claimed invention addresses the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online. These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet, because they solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings.”}. Examiner notes that the instant application does Not recite any Internet-centric limitations therein; as have been recited in at least the last step of Claim 2 in Example 21 (besides other steps also above it) and recited as --- {“wherein the alert activates the stock viewer application to cause the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to enable connection via the URL to the data source over the Internet when the wireless device is locally connected to the remote subscriber computer and the remote subscriber computer comes online.”}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Please Note that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application that form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims; and said prior art includes references with synonyms for terms used in the claims that have been interpreted under the BRI (broad reasonable interpretation) procedures of the Office. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
PSA Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/SANJEEV MALHOTRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights