DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant’s amendment filed January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-22, 27-37, and 41 were amended. Claims 21-39 and 41 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
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 21-39 and 41 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 21-39 and 41 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 21 -: 21, a method comprising: receiving, by a management of a linked contribution funded account (CFA) and from a card of the CFA, a claims request comprising a claim amount, a service type, and a multi-purse (MP) indicator, wherein the CFA comprises the management, the card, and a bank, and the card does not allow for delayed reconciliation; selecting, using the MP indicator, an MP table corresponding to a user associated with the claims request, wherein: (i) the MP table in (a) a management and (b) the card, (ii) the MP table specifies (a) one or more priorities and (b) one or more qualified service types for each of one or more sub-accounts for the user, identifying, using the MP table, an ordered set of sub-accounts for the claims request, wherein the ordered set of sub-accounts is based at least in part on (a) a comparison between the service type and the one or more qualified service types for each of the one or more sub-accounts for the user and (b) the one or more priorities for each of the one or more sub-accounts for the user; and responsive to the claim amount exceeding a contribution funded account (CFA) balance, allowing the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process at the card by: initiating, in accordance with the ordered set of sub-accounts, a transfer of funds from a contribution funded account on demand (CFAOD) to a CFA by: (i) deducting a portion of the CFAOD balance, (ii) adding the portion of the CFAOD balance to the CFA to allow immediate access to future contributions, and (i1i) adding the portion of the CFAOD balance to an amount borrowed; and delaying contribution reconciliation of a card CFA and a card CFAOD with the CFA and the CFAOD, respectively, based at least in part on a pledged contribution amount and the amount borrowed by: providing, to the bank, a bank transaction associated with the pledged contribution amount to receive a bank settlement result based on one or more restrictions stored by the bank, providing, concurrently with the bank transaction, update transaction to the card to reconcile the card CFA and the card CFAOD with the CFA and the CFAOD and to receive a card settlement result based on one or more restrictions stored by the card, and updating, the CFA balance based on the bank settlement result and the card settlement result. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 22 -: 22, the method of claim 21, providing the bank transaction in accordance with the ordered set of sub-accounts. Claim 23 -: 23, the method of claim 21, wherein the one or more sub-accounts for the user comprise a plurality of CFA and a plurality of CFAOD and identifying the ordered set of sub-accounts comprises identifying the CFA from the plurality of CFA and the CFAOD from the plurality of CFAOD based on the service type. Claim 24 -: 24, the method of claim 21, wherein the user is associated with a plurality of MP indicators and the MP indicator is based on one or more statuses of the one or more sub-accounts for the user. Claim 25 -: 25, the method of claim 24, wherein the one or more statuses identify whether one or more of the one or more sub-accounts comprise invested funds and the MP indicator is used to select the MP table comprising the ordered set of sub-accounts that excludes a respective card CFAOD linked to the invested funds. Claim 26 -: 26, the method of claim 21, wherein the MP table identifies the CFA from a CFA table and the CFAOD from a CFAOD table. Claim 27 -: 27, the method of claim 26, wherein the CFA table in (a) the management and (b) the card. Claim 28 -: 28, the method of claim 26, wherein the CFAOD table in (a) the management and (b) the card. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 29 -: 29, a linked contribution funded account (CFA) comprising a management, a card, and a bank, wherein the card does not allow for delayed reconciliation, and the management comprises: ; and readable executable instructions that, when executed cause to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the card, a claims request comprising a claim amount, a service type, and a multi-purse (MP) indicator; selecting, using the MP indicator, an MP table corresponding to a user associated with the claims request, wherein: (i) the MP table in... (ii) the MP table specifies... [id. at 21], identifying, using the MP table, an ordered set of sub-accounts for the claims request, wherein the ordered set of sub-accounts is based at least in part on (a) a comparison between the service type and the one or more qualified service types for each of the one or more sub-accounts for the user and (b) the one or more priorities for each of the one or more sub-accounts for the user; and responsive to the claim amount exceeding a (CFA) balance, allowing the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process at the card by: initiating, in accordance... (i) deducting a portion... (ii) adding the portion... [id. at 21], (i1i) adding the portion of the CFAOD balance to the amount borrowed; and delaying contribution... [id. at 21], providing, to the bank, a bank transaction associated with the pledged contribution amount to receive a bank settlement result based on one ore more restrictions stored by the bank, providing, concurrently with the bank transaction an update transaction to the card to reconcile the card CFA and the card CFAOD with the CFA and the CFAOD and to receive a card settlement result based on one or more restrictions stored by the card, and updating the CFA balance based on the bank settlement result and the card settlement result. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 30 -: 30, the CFA of claim 29, wherein the operations further comprise providing the bank transaction, in accordance with the ordered set of sub-accounts. Claim 31 -: 31, the CFA of claim 29, wherein the one or more sub-accounts for the user comprise a plurality of CFA and a plurality of CFAOD and identifying the ordered set of sub-accounts comprises identifying the CFA from the plurality of CFA and the CFAOD from the plurality of CFAOD based on the service type. Claim 32 -: 32, the CFA of claim 29, wherein the user is associated with a plurality of MP indicators and the MP indicator is based on one or more statuses of the one or more sub-accounts for the user. Claim 33 -: 33, the CFA of claim 32, wherein the one or more statuses identify whether one or more of the one or more sub-accounts comprise invested funds and the MP indicator is used to select the MP table comprising the ordered set of sub-accounts that excludes a respective card CFAOD linked to the invested funds. Claim 34 -: 34, the CFA of claim 29, wherein the MP table identifies the CFA from a CFA table and the CFAOD from a CFAOD table. Claim 35 -: 35, the CFA of claim 34, wherein the CFA table in (a) the management and (b) the card. Claim 36 -: 36, the CFA of claim 34, wherein the CFAOD table in (a) the management and (b) the card. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 37 -: 37, executable instructions that, when executed by, cause to perform operations comprising: receiving, by a management... wherein the CFA comprises... the card does not allow... [id. at 21], selecting, using the... [id. at 29], (i) the MP table in... (ii) the MP table specifies... [id. at 21], identifying, using the... [id. at 29], responsive to the claim amount exceeding a CFA balance, allowing the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process at the card by: initiating, in accordance... (i) deducting a portion... (ii) adding the portion... [id. at 21], (i1i) adding the portion... [id. at 29], delaying contribution... [id. at 21], providing, to the bank, a bank transaction associated with the pledged contribution amount to receive a bank settlement result based on one or more restrictions stored by the bank, providing, concurrently with the bank transaction, an update transaction to the card to reconcile the card CFA and the card CFAOD with the CFA and the CFAOD and to receive a card settlement result based on one or more restrictions stored by the card, and updating the CFA balance... [id. at 29], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 38 -: 38, claim 37, wherein the user is associated with a plurality of MP indicators and the MP indicator is based on one or more statuses of the one or more sub-accounts for the user. Claim 39 -: 39, claim 38, wherein the one or more statuses identify whether one or more of the one or more sub-accounts comprise invested funds and the MP indicator is used to select the MP table comprising the ordered set of sub-accounts that excludes a respective card CFAOD linked to the invested funds. Claim 41 -: 41, the method of claim 21, wherein the specifically defined delay is configured to delay contribution reconciliation within the CFA until the pledged contribution amount is received. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: reconciliation for enabling accelerated access to contribution funded accounts as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 21, 29, and 37 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 21 and is described by the steps of independent claim 29 and is described by the steps of independent claim 37.
Claim 21 (as amended): Materially with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 21 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-implemented", "one or more processors", "management system", "linked contribution funded account (CFA) system", "card system", "CFA system", "bank system", "is stored", and "database". However, independent claim 21 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-implemented", "one or more processors", "management system", "linked contribution funded account (CFA) system", "card system", "CFA system", "bank system", "is stored", and "database" of independent claim 21 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer-implemented method comprising", "receiving, by one or more … a multi-purse ("MP") indicator", "wherein the CFA system comprises … a bank system, and", "the card system does not allow for delayed reconciliation", "selecting, by the one or … the claims request, wherein", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system", " (ii) the MP table … sub-accounts for the user", "identifying, by the one or … for the user; and", "responsive to the claim amount … the card system by", "initiating, by the one or … to a CFA by", " (i) deducting a portion of the CFAOD balance", " (ii) adding the portion … to future contributions, and", " (i1i) adding the portion … an amount borrowed; and", "delaying contribution reconciliation of a … the amount borrowed by", "providing, by the one or … by the bank system", "providing, by the one or … the card system, and" and "updating, by the one or … the card settlement result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 21 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 29 (as amended): Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 29 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "linked contribution funded account (CFA) system", "management system", "card system", "bank system", "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer readable media", "storing executable instructions", "is stored", and "database". However, independent claim 29 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "linked contribution funded account (CFA) system", "management system", "card system", "bank system", "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer readable media", "storing executable instructions", "is stored", and "database" of independent claim 29 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a linked contribution funded account … and a bank system", "wherein the card system does … for delayed reconciliation, and", "the management system comprises", "one or more processors; and", "one or more non-transitory computer … to perform operations comprising", "receiving, from the card system, … a multi-purse ("MP") indicator", "selecting, using the MP indicator, … the claims request, wherein", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system", " (ii) the MP table … sub-accounts for the user", "identifying, using the MP table, … for the user; and", "responsive to the claim amount … the card system by", "initiating, in accordance with the … to a CFA by", " (i) deducting a portion of the CFAOD balance", " (ii) adding the portion … to future contributions, and", " (i1i) adding the portion … the amount borrowed; and", "delaying contribution reconciliation of a … the amount borrowed by", "providing, to the bank system, … by the bank system", "providing, concurrently with the bank … the card system, and" and "updating the CFA balance based … the card settlement result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "one or more non-transitory computer … to perform operations comprising", "receiving, from the card system, … a multi-purse ("MP") indicator", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "one or more non-transitory computer … to perform operations comprising", "receiving, from the card system, … a multi-purse ("MP") indicator", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 29 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 37 (as amended): Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 37 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", "storing processor-executable instructions", "one or more processors", "management system", "linked contribution funded account (CFA) system", "card system", "CFA system", "bank system", "is stored", and "database". However, independent claim 37 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", "storing processor-executable instructions", "one or more processors", "management system", "linked contribution funded account (CFA) system", "card system", "CFA system", "bank system", "is stored", and "database" of independent claim 37 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a one or more non-transitory … to perform operations comprising", "receiving, by a management system … a multi-purse ("MP") indicator", "wherein the CFA system comprises … a bank system, and", "the card system does not allow for delayed reconciliation", "selecting, using the MP indicator, … the claims request, wherein", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system", " (ii) the MP table … sub-accounts for the user", "identifying, using the MP table, … for the user; and", "responsive to the claim amount … the card system by", "initiating, in accordance with the … to a CFA by", " (i) deducting a portion of the CFAOD balance", " (ii) adding the portion … to future contributions, and", " (i1i) adding the portion … the amount borrowed; and", "delaying contribution reconciliation of a … the amount borrowed by", "providing, to the bank system, … by the bank system", "providing, concurrently with the bank … the card system, and" and "updating the CFA balance based … the card settlement result") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a one or more non-transitory … to perform operations comprising", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a one or more non-transitory … to perform operations comprising", " (i) the MP table … (b) the card system", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 37 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 21, 29, and 37 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 22-28, 30-36, 38-39, and 41 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 30-36: Dependent claims 30-36 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "CFA system" of dependent claims 30-36 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 41: Dependent claim 41 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "computer-implemented" of dependent claim 41 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22: Dependent claim 22 adds an additional method step of "the computer-implemented method of claim 21, providing the bank transaction in accordance with the ordered set of sub-accounts". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 22 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23: Dependent claim 23 adds additional method steps of "the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more sub-accounts for the user comprise a … plurality of CFA and the CFAOD from the plurality of CFAOD based on the service type". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 23 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 23 is ineligible.
Claim 24: Dependent claim 24 adds an additional method step of "the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the user is associated with a plurality of MP indicators … is based on one or more statuses of the one or more sub-accounts for the user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 24 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 24 is ineligible.
Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "the computer-implemented method of claim 24, wherein the one or more statuses identify whether one or more … the ordered set of sub-accounts that excludes a respective card CFAOD linked to the invested funds". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 25 is ineligible.
Claim 26: Dependent claim 26 adds additional method steps of "the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the MP table identifies the CFA from a CFA table and the CFAOD from a CFAOD table". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 26 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 26 is ineligible.
Claim 27: Dependent claim 27 adds additional method steps of "the computer-implemented method of claim 26, wherein the CFA table is stored in (a) the management database and (b) the card system". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 27 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 27 is ineligible.
Claim 28: Dependent claim 28 adds additional method steps of "the computer-implemented method of claim 26, wherein the CFAOD table is stored in (a) the management database and (b) the card system". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 28 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 28 is ineligible.
Claim 30: Dependent claim 30 adds an additional method step of "providing the bank transaction, in accordance with the ordered set of sub-accounts". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 30 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 30 is ineligible.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 adds additional method steps of "the CFA system of claim 29, wherein the one or more sub-accounts for the user comprise a … plurality of CFA and the CFAOD from the plurality of CFAOD based on the service type". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 31 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 31 is ineligible.
Claim 32: Dependent claim 32 adds an additional method step of "the CFA system of claim 29, wherein the user is associated with a plurality of MP indicators … is based on one or more statuses of the one or more sub-accounts for the user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 32 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 32 is ineligible.
Claim 33: Dependent claim 33 adds an additional method step of "the CFA system of claim 32, wherein the one or more statuses identify whether one or more … the ordered set of sub-accounts that excludes a respective card CFAOD linked to the invested funds". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 33 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 33 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds additional method steps of "the CFA system of claim 29, wherein the MP table identifies the CFA from a CFA table and the CFAOD from a CFAOD table". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 34 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 34 is ineligible.
Claim 35: Dependent claim 35 adds additional method steps of "the CFA system of claim 34, wherein the CFA table is stored in (a) the management database and (b) the card system". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 35 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 35 is ineligible.
Claim 36: Dependent claim 36 adds additional method steps of "the CFA system of claim 34, wherein the CFAOD table is stored in (a) the management database and (b) the card system". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 36 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 36 is ineligible.
Claim 38: Dependent claim 38 adds an additional method step of "the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 37, wherein the user is associated with a … is based on one or more statuses of the one or more sub-accounts for the user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 38 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 38 is ineligible.
Claim 39: Dependent claim 39 adds an additional method step of "the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 38, wherein the one or more statuses identify … the ordered set of sub-accounts that excludes a respective card CFAOD linked to the invested funds". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 39 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 39 is ineligible.
Claim 41: Dependent claim 41 adds an additional method step of "the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the specifically defined delay is configured to delay contribution reconciliation within the CFA until the pledged contribution amount is received". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 41 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 41 is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted January 26, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed October 30, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the October 30, 2025 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• Specifically, the Applicant argued:
"[] The claims have been amended herein to recite a distributed computing system (e.g., linked contribution funded account (CFA) system comprising a management system, a card system, and a bank system) that introduces a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process to provide a technical solution that is not routine and conventional and solves a technical problem rising out of the system being in a distributed computer and network environment. [S]ee [] the Declaration of Dr. Jules White Under 37 C.F.R. -º 1.132 (hereinafter White Dec). [T]he claimed system is (i) not a fundamental economic practice or principle, nor any other abstract idea recognized by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, -º 2106 (9th ed. Rev. June 2022) (hereinafter MPEP) and (ii) provides technical improvements to distributed computing environments. Id. Applicant submits that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. -º 101.
"Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. -º 101. [] Applicant submits that independent claim 1 presents patent eligible subject matter under at least both prongs of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
'[] "A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception." []
'[] Claim 21, as amended, recites a specific arrangement of components that is used to "enable[e] accelerated access to contribution funded accounts", which is not a certain method of organizing human activity. See Specification [0005]; see also White Dec. 11-15.
'[T]he elements of independent claim 21 do not fall into any of the groupings or sub- groupings.[E]lements of independent claim 29 do not qualify for the "rare circumstances" exception. [I]ndependent claim 29, as amended, recites[]:
"[amended claim language].
'[C]laim 29 introduces (i) a multi-purse table that is stored in multiple locations and (ii) dual accounting data structures, e.g., the CFA and CFAOD, that collectively allow the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process within a linked contribution funded account (CFA) system including a card system that does not allow for delayed reconciliation. See Specification, as filed, [0091]; see also White Dec 12. The specifically defined delay provides a functionality that is contrary to fundamental economic practices at the time of filing the present application. See Specification, as filed, [0005]; see also White Dec 6-8. For example, at the time of filing the present application, accounts would be reconciled without delay. White Dec 3-6. The use of the MP table and dual accounts and the delaying of reconciliation, as recited by claim 29, is a departure from standard financial transaction. White Dec 8. Therefore, claim 29 does not recite "fundamental economic principles or practices" [].
'[C]laim 29, does not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity." [T]he claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception under prong one of Step 2A.
'[T]he judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do "not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application." [] Claim 29, as amended, recites a specific configuration of data structures that "allows immediate reconciliation by entities (i.e., a card system) that do not allow delayed reconciliation, while simultaneously allowing delayed reconciliation by one or more other entities (i.e., a bank system and management system) so that the transaction can proceed." White Dec 8. This is a technical solution that is not routine and conventional and solves a technical problem rising out of the system being in a distributed computer and network environment (i.e., a linked contribution funded account (CFA) system comprising a management system, a card system, and a bank system). [E]ven if claim 29 were directed to an abstract idea-which, Applicant submits, it is not- the claim recites a combination of additional elements that improves a technical field such that the claim as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. -º 101.
"[C]laim 1 recites, inter alia:
"[amended claim language].
'[] Claim 29 recites several additional elements that, in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. [C]laim 29 recites an MP table that is stored in both a management database and a card system. [C]laim 29 recites a CFAOD that includes both a balance and an amount borrowed. [C]laim 29 recites using the MP table and the CFAOD to delay contribution reconciliation such that it is performed concurrently with one or more bank transactions associated with a pledged contribution amount. In combination, these elements provide an improvement in a distributed computer system's functionality that enables accelerated access to funds compared to fundamental practices. In fact, as noted above, this represents a departure from normal bank infrastructure operation, which would process transactions immediately so that no inconsistencies would exist between accounts. See White Dec. 3-7 and 11-15. To allow for the departure from such operations, claim 29 introduces aspecifically defined delay into the reconciliation process that solves the problem of synchronization mismatches between accounts that would otherwise occur by "mimicking continuous and instantaneous reconciliation by stating to the other entities that the transaction can proceed, while simultaneously delaying reconciliation internally." See White Dec. 8 & 12. This is shown[] by:
"[amended claim language].
"[T]he additional elements recited by claim 29 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by improving the functionality of a computer.
"[] Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. -º 101 because the claimed invention integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under prong two of step 2A.
"[C]laim 1 recites a specific arrangement of computing components, including dual data structures and an MP table, within a distributed computing ecosystem (i.e., linked contribution funded account (CFA) system) and, by doing so, allows the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process and immediate access to future contributions. The arrangement of computing components is unconventional and leads to an inventive concept well beyond any judicial exception. For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia
"[amended claim language].
'[] The transferring steps for transferring funds between two dual accounts, [] are the product of a new arrangement of computing components within "an electronic architecture that innovates .. . by using a distribution component to update both a CFA and a CFA on-demand balance at a card processor." See White Dec 13 and 15. This innovation allows for the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process - something that (1) legacy systems, such as the card system, could not do and (2) runs counter to fundamental economic principles or practices. See White Dec 8.
'[A]s explained by the White Dec, "the concept of delaying reconciliation [is] a departure from standard financial transaction processing" and "requires specialized processing to ensure that the individual requirements of all entities in the system are satisfied." White Dec at8. "[S]upporting delayed reconciliation requires designing a distributed transaction processing system that allows immediate reconciliation by entities (e.g., card system) that do not allow delayed reconciliation, while simultaneously allowing delayed reconciliation by one or more other entities (i.e., bank system) so that the transaction can proceed." Id. To address this deficiency, claim 29 recites a set of transferring steps for transferring funds between dual accounts, which "allow the resolution of balances (i.e., the continuous tracking of balances) so that decisions can be made instantaneously on whether or not to approve transactions." White Dec at 11. [T]hrough a first transfer, a portion of the balance is deducted from a first account, a CFOA. Then, through a second transfer, the deducted portion is added to a second account, CFA, to allow immediate access to future contributions. See Specification [0039] and [0157]-[0158]. [T]hrough a third transfer, the deducted portion is added back to the first account to enable a delayed reconciliation at a time when future contributions become available. See Specification [0102] and [0127]-[0130]. This last step is further reflected by the last limitation of claim 29.
'Taken together the set of transferring steps for transferring funds between dual accounts, as recited by the claim 29, adds unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., allowing the introduction of a specifically defined delay into a reconciliation process, which qualifies as "significantly more" than any judicial exception. See MPEP -º 2106.05(A); citing BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&TMobilityLLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-5 1, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
"[C]laim 29 recites the use of the specifically defined delay within a specific, non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of components. [C]laim 1 recites:
"[amended claim language].
"[] The claims recite a management system that interacts (e.g., by receiving a claims request and then providing update transactions) with a card system, a management database, and a bank system to enable a specifically defined delay for a reconciliation process at a card system that does not allow for delayed reconciliation. In this regard, claim 29 in analogous to BASCOM as it recites a specific arrangement of computing components (e.g., management database, card system, bank system, MP table, CFA, and CFAOD) that in combination amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In Bascom, the claims provided an inventive distribution of functionality within a network to improve a computing task (i.e., filtering Internet content). Here, claim 29 also provides an inventive distribution of functionality within a computer environment to improve a computing task. The improved computing task in this case is improved distributed account processing within a distributed computing system that, like filtering Internet content, is specifically tied to computer functionality (i.e., both the Internet and distributed account processing are byproducts of a computer). Thus, as was the case in BASCOM, the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements recited by claim 29 provide an improvement to a technical field such that the claim, as a whole, integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action improperly rejects claim 29 (and the claims depending therefrom) as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter [].
"For at least the same reasons [], Applicant submits that the independent claims 21 and 37 recite patent eligible subject matter [].
"[] The foregoing amendments and remarks are believed to have placed the present application in condition for allowance[]. "
(REMARKS, pp. 10-20).
Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments submitted January 26, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 10-20 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. Questions of preemption are inherently addressed within the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated into the above depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved using this framework to identify preemptive claims. While a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not establish that a claim is eligible. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses.
Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
With respect to the Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility court decision cited by the Applicant, the Office finds that the legal holdings of Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1236 (Fed Cir. 2016), when applied to the facts pertaining to the Applicant's claims, do not support the eligibility of Applicant's claims under Step 2A or 2B of the above-depicted § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes flowchart. In the process of considering the precise facts and the particular holdings of Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility in the Applicant's pending matter, the Office notes that in Bascom, claims were found to be eligible in Step 2B for methods and systems regarding filtering internet content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the precise facts present in the Applicant's pending matter are substantially contradistinctive from the material facts in Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility regarding Bascom's holdings. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of ineligibility by the district court at Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice framework when analyzing a claimed system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network. The BASCOM court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. In contrast, the Applicant's alleged invention involves reconciliation for enabling accelerated access to contribution funded accounts, and the claims presented in the Applicant's currently pending application do not include any inventive concept that may be found in any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of any additional elements as fully analyzed and presented above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading, contrary to the Applicant's above-argued assertions, the Office maintains that the pertinent material facts in the instant pending Application are substantially dissimilar to the facts in Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility. Thus, the Office concludes that the legal holdings of Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility can not properly be applied to the Applicant's pending matter to support any finding of eligibility under Step 2A or 2B. The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al. (US 2014/0278494) – showing systems and methods for health care account processing
Evans et al. (U.S. 2014/0279474) – showing multi-purse one card transaction apparatuses, methods and systems
Kenna et al. (U.S. Patent Number 6,108,641) – showing integrated nested account financial system with medical savings subaccount
Stouffer et al. (U.S. 2012/0130787) – showing system and method for providing a multi-purse consumer discount card
Dangott et al. (U.S. 2012/0233074) – showing a targeted benefit account that identifies restrictions on sub-accounts used to make a payment
Pourfallah et al. (U.S. 2012/0239560) – showing collection of payments from available accounts in a prioritized order
Hummer et al. (U.S. 2011/0295614) – shows providing online automated payment architecture for health service using multiple accounts
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Tuesday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 02/10/2026