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 .
Acknowledgments
The submission filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 12/17/25, claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended, and no claims were cancelled or added.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Office responds to Applicant's arguments as follows.
Step 2A, prong 1
Applicant argues that "the claims do not recite elements that fall under" "the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people." Response, p. 13.
Specifically, Applicant states that "the claims involve 'programmed servers with associated data structures to track and manage user-related activity data'." Response, p. 13. Then Applicant recites the entirety of claim 1 and reasserts that claim 1 does not fall under the indicated categories. Response, p. 14. Finally, Applicant offers the steps of "transferring...first real- time user-related activity data of a user from a cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer into a datastore of the transaction account issuer" and "retrieving... second real-time user-related activity data from the cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer" as examples of operations that don't fall into the indicated categories but rather "extract data from client accounts and process the data for analysis to track activity data." Response, p. 15.
In response, the Examiner notes that not only does claim 1 track and manage activity data but also determines eligibility for, and generates, a fixed activity plan (see last two steps of claim 1). As per the disclosure (0004-0005, Figs. 3-5), the fixed activity plan is a fixed fee payment plan, i.e., an installment loan plan instead of a regular credit card charge/revolving APR balance. Thus, this determining of eligibility for and generating of a fixed activity plan constitutes an abstract idea that falls under the category of fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions.1 More specifically, the bolded portions of claim 1 indicated in the rejection collectively constitute an abstract idea. Thus, the transfer and retrieval of data constitute part of the abstract idea.
The unbolded portions of claim 1 indicated in the rejection, including the "application server," constitute generic computer components. Thus, the cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer and the datastore of the transaction account issuer constitute generic computer components. These generic computer components are not described but are recited at a high level of generality and are used in their ordinary capacities.
Step 2A, prong 2
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides an improvement to technology. Response, p. 17. Specifically, Applicant argues:
[1] The Office Action fails to follow this standard set forth by the director. [2] The Office Action alleges on page 3 that "[t]he putative improvement argued by Applicant involves selecting or identifying particular data sets in particular locations/types of storage for retrieval. [3] Applicant disagrees with this argument and its high level of generality. [4] The technological advancement provides a specific improvement to the technology, as explained in the specification at least as shown above [sic]2, through specific integration of the improvements, as defined in amended claim 1. [5] As stated by the Office Action (p. 3), amended claim 1 provides for specific direction "involve[ing] selecting or identifying particular data sets in particular locations/types of storage" that provide for improvement to the functioning of the computer elements (emphasis added). [6] Therefore, the additional elements are particularly described at a sufficient level to denote technological advancement. [7] Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 recites a technical solution to a technical problem and is therefore a patent-eligible approach. (Response, p. 17; emphasis in original; bracketed numerals added for reference in the discussion below)
Then Applicant highlights the first two steps of claim 1 (these are the same steps that Applicant cited in abbreviated form under Step 2A, prong 1, as noted above). Response, p. 17. Finally, Applicant cites the specification 0017-0018, 0022-0023. Response, pp. 18-19.
In response, initially, the portion of Applicant's remarks quoted above does not appear to be coherent. At [3] Applicant disagrees with the characterization provided by the rejection in [2]. However, at [5], Applicant puts forth the very same characterization as describing amended claim 1. Thus, Applicant is seen in fact to agree with the characterization of the alleged improvement formulated by the rejection.
Further, Applicant appears to assert that because the selection/identification is of particular data in particular locations/types of storage, it amounts to an improvement in technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that particular data is selected/identified in particular locations/types of storage, as opposed to unspecified data being selected/identified in unspecified locations/types of storage, does not amount to an improvement in technology or the functioning of a computer. The subject matter in question does not perform any technical process and does not change how a computer or other technology operates, but rather merely uses such computer or other technology as is, in its ordinary capacity. As such, no improvement to technology or the functioning of a computer is seen.
Moving on, the first two steps of claim 1 have been analyzed in the discussion of step 2A, prong 1, above. As discussed there, these steps include abstract idea components of transferring and retrieving data, and generic computer components of a cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer and a datastore of the transaction account issuer. Again, the subject matter of these two steps does not perform any technical process and does not change how a computer or other technology operates, but rather merely uses such computer or other technology as is, in its ordinary capacity. As such, no improvement to technology or the functioning of a computer is seen.
Finally, as for the discussion of specification 0017-0018, 0022-0023, this is the same argument Applicant presented in the previous response. Accordingly, the Examiner responds along the same lines as in the previous Office Action:
Applicant argues that the claims include a technical improvement, namely, of being able to quickly present real time offers to the consumer with decreased processing requirements, by not being limited to only considering data retrieved during scheduled batch operation, referencing 0022-0023 of the specification ("It would take a large amount of time to fetch real time data for all of the batch data stored in the datastore 180 in combination with the real time data in the cache 170. However, by utilizing the batch data in the datastore 180 in combination with the real time data in the cache 170, the system 100 is able to quickly present real time offers to the consumer with decreased processing requirements."). Response, pp. 18-19.
The putative improvement argued by Applicant involves selecting or identifying particular data sets in particular locations/types of storage for retrieval. As such, the putative improvement would be an improvement in the abstract idea, not in the functioning of a computer or other technology/technological field. So too, the alleged benefits of speed and conservation of computer resources result from the improvement in the abstract idea, not from any improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology/technological field. In fact, the claims use off-the-shelf, generic computer components operating according to their ordinary capacities/functionalities, recited at a high level of generality. Neither the claims nor the specification appears to disclose any improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology/technological field.
Step 2B
At Response, p. 20, Applicant appears to argue that when claim 1 is viewed as a whole/viewing all the elements in combination, the claim amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant offers no example or argument of how the claim when considered as a whole/combination amounts to anything more than the mere sum of its elements considered individually. See Response, pp. 20-22. Instead, Applicant merely states that
Viewing the claim elements as a combination, amended claim 1 recites specific details of how a solution of tracking real-time user-related activity data to solve a particular problem of processing time to generate a fixed activity plan. Thus, amended claim 1 provides a particular way to achieve the desired income of "generating, by the application server of the transaction account issuer, a second fixed activity plan" based at least in part on the activity data tracked in relation to the user. Response, pp. 20-21.
Beyond this statement, Applicant merely reverts to the same arguments presented previously for step 2A, prongs 1 and 2, namely, that claim 1 provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer and/or other technology/technical field, (i) based on the same two steps argued previously (transferring and retrieving steps), Response, p. 21; (ii) based on the "programmed servers with associated data structures to track and manage user-related activity data," which was argued previously, Response, p. 21; and (iii) based on the additional steps of 'determining eligibility' and 'generating the activity plan', Response, p. 22. Points (i) and (ii), amounting to Applicant's previous arguments, have been addressed above (Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2) . Point (iii) has also been addressed above, inasmuch as it was explained above (Step 2A, prong 1) that the steps of 'determining eligibility' and 'generating the activity plan' constitute a key part of the abstract idea.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, system, or non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for determining eligibility for a fixed activity plan which, per the disclosure (e.g., 0004-0005, Figs. 3-5), is fixed fee payment plan, i.e., an installment loan. For claims 1, 8 and 15 (claim 1 being deemed representative), the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
transferring, by an application server of a transaction account issuer, via a batch processing operation, first real-time user-related activity data of a user from a cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer into a datastore of the transaction account issuer;
retrieving, in a period between a last executed batch processing operation and a next scheduled batch processing operation by the application server of the transaction account issuer, second real-time user-related activity data from the cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer;
determining, by the application server of the transaction account issuer, that the first real-time user-related activity data and the second real-time user-related activity data specifies an event corresponding to a first fixed activity plan agreed to by the user after the last executed batch processing operation;
decreasing, by the application server of the transaction account issuer, a current limit on a number allowance for the fixed activity plans based at least in part on the event specified in the second real-time user-related activity data and the defined number of total fixed payment plans set for the user;
determining, by the application server of the transaction account issuer, that the user is eligible for a second fixed activity plan under the decreased current limit on the number allowance; and
generating, by the application server of the transaction account issuer, the second fixed activity plan.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of an application server of a transaction account issuer, a cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer, a datastore of the transaction account issuer, and a screen of a computing device associated with the user, that implement the abstract idea (the foregoing recited in claims 1, 8 and 15), at least one application server of a transaction account issuer, at least one cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer, and a datastore of the transaction account issuer (the foregoing recited in claim 8), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software thereon, the software comprising instructions configured to cause at least one processor of at least one computer to perform steps (the foregoing recited in claim 15), that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination 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. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an application server of a transaction account issuer, a cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer, a datastore of the transaction account issuer, and a screen of a computing device associated with the user, that implement the abstract idea (the foregoing recited in claims 1, 8 and 15), at least one application server of a transaction account issuer, at least one cache memory storage of the transaction account issuer, and a datastore of the transaction account issuer (the foregoing recited in claim 8), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software thereon, the software comprising instructions configured to cause at least one processor of at least one computer to perform steps (the foregoing recited in claim 15), to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 merely further describe calculating fees/amounts.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 merely further describe calculating fees/amounts, real-time, and a display.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 merely further describe calculating fees/amounts, receiving a payment, and revolving a balance.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 merely further describe determining a duration.
Dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 merely further describe determining eligibility.
As for additional elements:
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9 and 11-13 recite "the application server of a transaction account issuer." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 recite "the application server of a transaction account issuer," and "communicating … by the application server of the transaction account issuer to the computing device … software instructions for displaying a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 16 and 18-20 recite "wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor of the at least one computer." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 17 recites "wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor of the at least one computer" and "communicate … to the computing device … software instructions for displaying a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7 and 14 do not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, are not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among the cited references, Reynolds (US-20100094735-A1) teaches determining eligibility for fixed activity plans (installment loans) and decreasing a maximum allowance (credit) available for fixed activity plans (installment loans) based on a user's entering into a fixed activity plan (installment loan), as well as generating the plan (installment loan), providing it to the user, receiving the user's response/selection of the plan (installment loan), receiving the user's performance data (payment) for the plan (installment loan), and assigning the performance data (payment) to the plan (installment loan); Boal (US-20140180810-A1) teaches temporary and permanent storage (including user profile) of real-time user-related activity data, batch transfer of the data from temporary to permanent storage (including user profile), determining eligibility for a fixed activity plan (e.g., offer) based on both the data in the temporary storage and the data in the permanent storage, and APIs; Bornhofen (US-20150073975-A1) (see 0153) teaches instant credit decisions for issuing credit on a credit line, where the decisions take into newly established account information for the same day until batch processing runs at night; Britten (US-20030167226-A1) (see 0011, description of Figs. 2 and 3) and Roe (US-20120221397-A1) (see description of Figs. 2 and 3) teach determining/updating a credit limit based on batch data and determining/updating a credit limit based on real time data; and Mancini (U.S. Patent No. 7,606,764), Okamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0161699 A1), Bhagwat (U.S. Patent No. 7,870,048), Amazon ("Monthly Payments Terms & Conditions"), Kalra et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0094134 A1), Vincente et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,078,528), Stack et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0063153 A1), and Zeinfeld (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0058143 A1) teach installment loan schemes with various details of or similar to Applicant's claims and disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am – 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DWP/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Note: the rejection did not allege that Applicant's claims fall under the category of "managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people."
2 Note: no citation/discussion of subject matter from the specification is found in the preceding portion of Applicant's arguments.