DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2025 has been entered.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on June 30, 2025 for Application No. 18/373,720 filed on September 27, 2023, titled: “Automatic Savings Program”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 06/30/2025 Response, claims 1, 7, 15, and 20 have been amended, no claim has been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application is a CON of US Application No. 17/983,088 filed on 11/08/2022 (Patented No. 11,810,82) which is a CON of US Application No. 16/817,785 filed on 03/13/2020 (Patented No. 11,526,856) which is a CON of US Application No. 14/109,269 filed 12/17/2013 (Patent No. 10,628,808) which is a CON of US Application No. 13/613,433 filed 09/13/2012 (Patent No. 8,635,137) which is a CON of US Application No. 12/554,395 filed on 09/04/2009 (Patent No. 8,301,530) which is a CON of US Application No. 11/161,418 filed 08/02/2005 (Abandoned).
For the purpose of examination, the 08/02/2005 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claims 1, 15, and 20 contain new limitations such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount; (f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” are not described anywhere in the Specification. The Applicant has cited paragraphs 16, 17, 21, 26-29, and 32 for the newly added limitations. However, the Examiner has carefully reviewed the cited paragraphs and the associated figure and do not see how they can support the newly added limitations such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day …; (f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day,”. At the best, the cited paragraph 32 merely describe that the aggregating round ups occurs on a daily basis, and that the daily posting occurs at the end of the day to further avoid drafting over an account balance. These description do not support the newly added claim limitations, such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day …; (f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day,”. Therefore, the Applicant has added new claim limitations that are not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had the possession of the claimed invention.
The Applicant is required to cite the specific support information or cancel the amendments in the reply to this Office Action.
[0016] Network 14 can be any type of network or communication device that allows POS 12 to communicate with server 16. Network 14 includes one or more routers or computer systems. In one embodiment, network 14 includes a computer system operated by the issuer of the credit card or debit card/check card used to make a purchase at POS 12 (e.g., a computer system operated by VISA).
[0017] Server 16 is a computer system operated by a bank or other financial institution that is implementing an embodiment of the present invention. Server 16 may be any type of computer or other device that is capable of communicating with network 14 and executing software steps. In one embodiment, server 16 includes a processor, memory and communication interface.
[0021] 104: The types of debits/transactions that are to be “round up” are selected. “Round up” refers to one method used to calculate a savings amount from a transaction. In one embodiment, the round up amount is an amount of excess funds produced by applying a rounder transaction to the amount of a transaction such as a credit/debit card charge at POS 12. If the rounder transaction rounds up to the nearest dollar, for example, a purchase made for $54.08 would generate a rounded amount of $0.92. Other embodiments of the present invention may round up to a predetermined amount besides the nearest dollar. Still further, other embodiments of the present invention may calculate the savings amount using a method other than round up. For example, a fixed percentage can be applied to each transaction to calculate a savings amount, or a fixed amount of money (e.g., $130) can be considered the savings amount. The available debits/transaction types to be round up are displayed (52) and can include only check card/debit card POS transactions, or any other types of debits. Example of other debits that can be the subject of round up or other calculation of a savings amount include paper checks, electronic bill pay, electronic checks, automatic payments and Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) transfers.
[0026] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of the functionality performed by server 16 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention to daily process the automatic savings transaction.
[0027] 200: The debit to the source account (e.g., check card POS, check, etc.) selected at 102 is authorized.
[0028] 202: The debit transaction, such as a purchase at POS 12 using a debit card, is processed.
[0029] 204: The debit transaction is posted to the source account.
[0032] 210: All round up amounts are aggregated. This occurs on a daily basis. By aggregating the round ups for one daily posting, drafting over the source account balance can be avoided. In one embodiment, the daily posting occurs at the end of the day to further avoid drafting over an account balance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The amended claims contain new limitations such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount; (f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” are not described anywhere in the Specification which rendering the claims to be indefinite. The metes and bounds of the claims cannot be understood because of the lack of definiteness in the claims.
The Applicant is required to cite the specific support information or cancel the amendments in the reply to this Office Action.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-14 recite a non-transitory computer-readable program to perform a method for saving money, claims 15-19 recite a computer system for saving money, and claim 20 recites another computer system for saving money. Therefore, the claims are directed to a manufactured product and machines which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, claims 15-20 are statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for causing a computer server communicatively coupled over a communication network with a point of sale device and having a memory and processor to perform a method for saving money comprising:
(a) posting a plurality of debit transactions to a source account, wherein at least one debit transaction of the plurality of debit transactions is received from the point of sale device;
(b) calculating at a financial institution a first savings amount based on a first of the plurality of debit transactions;
(c) calculating at a financial institution a second savings amount based on a second of the plurality of debit transactions;
(d) subsequent to step (a), calculating at a financial institution an aggregate savings amount comprising the first savings amount and the second savings amount;
(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;
(f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount; and
(g) if adequate funds are available in the source account,
i. debiting the source account by the aggregate savings amount; and
ii. crediting a recipient account by the aggregate savings amount.
The claim, as a whole, recites a method implemented on a computer system in communication over a network with a POS (point of sale) to manage a consumer savings program by receiving the financial transaction information, calculating the savings amount using the predetermined rules (i.e., first and second savings amounts, predetermined percentage, fixed period of time, and round up rule), aggregating the savings amounts, calculating the rewards amount based on a predetermined percentage of the aggregate savings amount, and determining whether sufficient savings amount is available for debiting a portion of it or crediting it to a recipient account. Calculating savings amount and rewards amount based on transaction information input has been in widespread used in the banking industry and is considered to be a commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contract; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity and a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., processors, memories, database, communication network, POS). More specifically, the claim recites concepts correspond to commercial interaction (aggregating the calculated savings amount and rewards amount, debiting and crediting accounts), and mathematical calculations (calculating and aggregating savings and rewards amount) including managing consumer savings program based on debit transaction input. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
The newly added limitations such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” and “(f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” further narrow the scope of the claim, but does not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Thus, the newly added amendments do not take the claim out of the abstract ideas.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a commercial interaction, then they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a mathematical calculation, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites a computer system and claim 20 recites another similar computer system with the comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claim 1. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components (a system, a POS, a communication interface, a computer server, a communication network) over a generic communication network do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts groupings. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. 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.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims (1, 15, and 20) include the additional elements, such as a computer system comprising processors, communication unit, and computer-readable medium storing instructions, all are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system (see Applicant’s Specification, paragraphs 14-17 and Figure 1) to perform the posting, calculating, calculating, calculating, postponing, determining, determining, debiting, and crediting steps. Applicant’s Specification does not describe how these computer elements are different from the general computer components. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement of the computer elements is found. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Claims 1, 15, and 20 do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the posting, calculating, calculating, calculating, determining, determining, debiting, and crediting functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 15, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 depend on independent claims 1 and 15 respectively and thus include all of the limitations and features of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1 and 15.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitations for calculating the aggregate savings amount is based on a predetermined percentage of the aggregate savings amount. The limitations are additional details for calculating the rewards amount and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-7 and 17 recite the additional limitations for calculating the aggregate savings amount based on a fixed amount of money for each debit transaction, and rounding up to a next dollar amount, determining whether adequate funds are available, is equal to a predetermined monetary amount multiplied by number of transactions of the debit transactions, and is the predetermined monetary amount applied for each transaction during a predetermined time period. The limitations are additional details for calculating the aggregate savings amount and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the additional limitations for the recipient account is a savings account and source account is a checking account. The limitations are additional details for the recipient account and source account and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9-10 recite the additional limitations for debit transactions are associated with a check card and an electronic bill pay associated with the source account. The limitations are additional details for the debit transaction and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the additional limitations for the method for saving money further comprising receiving input from a holder and includes discontinue enrollment of the source account. The limitations are additional details for the method of saving money and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12 and 18 recite the additional limitations for the aggregate saving amount credited to the recipient account is provided by a financial institution of the source account. The limitations are additional details for the rewards amount and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13-14 recite the additional limitations for the holders of the source account and recipient account. The limitations are additional details for the holders of source and recipient accounts and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites the additional limitations for generating a monthly statement of the first and second based financial transactions and the aggregate savings amounts debited for a month. The limitations are additional details for what details to be included in the monthly statement and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The limitations of claims 2-14 and 16-19 further define the abstract idea and are generic limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Thus, the dependent claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claim and additional details and requirements for managing bill presentment and payment process. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 15, and 20 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-14 and 16-19 also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims (1-20) is on a method implemented on a generic computing system for processing a consumer savings program by calculating and aggregating savings and rewards amounts based on the debit transaction information input based on a single time at an end of a day using the predetermined rules and the mathematical formula, and determining whether sufficient savings amount is available for debiting the source account and crediting the recipient account. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, computer network, or system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on a certain independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use. No incentive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s 06/30/2025 Response, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per page 8-9 (to line 5 of page 9) of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims when taken as a whole recite features necessarily rooted in computer technology for controlling processing particular aspects of a transaction based on detection of a triggering event. The Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea when considered as a whole.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims (1, 15, and 20) essentially contains seven steps describing a method of processing a consumer savings program by: posting debit transactions, calculating first savings amount, calculating second savings amount, calculating aggregate savings amount, postponing to a single time at an end of a day determining whether adequate funds are available to cover the aggregate savings amount, upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available to cover the aggregate savings amount, debiting and crediting the aggregate savings amount into a recipient account. The claims describe a method of processing a consumer savings program by calculating and aggregating savings amounts based on debit transaction information input and determining whether sufficient savings amount is available for debiting and crediting it into a recipient account. Calculating savings amount and rewards amount based on transaction input has been in widespread used in the financial industry and is considered to be a commercial interaction and mathematical concept which are considered to be the subgroups of an abstract idea.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a commercial interaction, then they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a mathematical calculation, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Also, as explained in the 101 analysis above, the newly added limitations such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” and “(f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” further narrow the scope of the claims, but does not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. The newly added amendments do not take the claims out of the abstract ideas.
Furthermore, the newly added limitations were not recited in the original claims and were not added until the recent 06/30/2025 Response and the cited support information do not support the amendments, and thus, the newly added amendments are treated as new subject matter. Applicant’s claimed invention is basically “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is supported in paragraphs 2-6 of the specification:
[0002] One embodiment of the present invention is directed to the computer processing of a consumer savings program. More particularly, one embodiment of the present invention is directed to the computer processing of a consumer savings program that provides for automatic savings during any transaction.
[0003] Many consumers feel that saving money is difficult. Those who make less or are raising families find it particularly challenging to put money away for emergencies, a child's education, or a special purchase. Even affluent consumers who do have the means to save money often feel that they could save more.
[0004] Currently, a consumer can save funds in a bank account by making deposits into the account or by transferring funds from another account. Further, they can automate the savings function by setting up recurring transfers from another account. However, the recurring transfer function is limited by the requirement to set a specific and minimum transfer amount and the need for the transfer to occur on a particular schedule. The recurring transfer function does not adequately support the flexibility of daily or small amount transfers.
[0005] In addition, grandparents or other relatives or friends sometimes desire to contribute money to somebody else's (e.g., a grandchild's) savings account. These contributors likely desire an automatic and pain free way to facilitate such a transfer of funds.
[0006] Based on the foregoing, there is a need for a system and method for automatically facilitating savings.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Per pages 9-10 (to line 19 of page 10) the Remarks, the Applicant cites and argues that present claims are similar to the PTAB case (Appeal No. 2017-002898) because “collecting usage information” is not a mathematical concept, an identified method of organizing human activity, or a mental process.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a system for controlling processing of aspects of a transaction based on a triggering event, which clearly integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that the present claims are limited to a practical application because they include particular steps on particular devices and performed in a particular order.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the PTAB decision of the Appeal case, the Examiner reminds the Applicant that the PTAB decisions do not represent the Office policy and are fact specific to the case being decided and does not represent the present claims. Further, it should be noted that the present claims are not the same as those in the case. Unlike the Appeal case, the present claims are directed to a method of processing a consumer savings program by calculating and aggregating savings amounts based on debit transaction input and determining whether sufficient savings amount is available for debiting and crediting it into a recipient account. The present claims do not perform “collecting usage information…”, “providing an interface…”, “receiving by an analytics engine…”, and “…altering operations of the computing system…”. The present claims are directed to a method of processing a consumer savings program and is supported in paragraph 2 of the specification;
[0002] One embodiment of the present invention is directed to the computer processing of a consumer savings program. More particularly, one embodiment of the present invention is directed to the computer processing of a consumer savings program that provides for automatic savings during any transaction.
With respect to the arguments of the newly added elements, the elements such as “(e) postponing, to a single time at an end of a day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” and “(f) upon detection of the single time at the end of the day, determining whether adequate funds are available in the source account to cover the aggregate savings amount;” are basically additional details for the existing functional steps of the claims which further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the 101 analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Per pages 10-11 (to line 5 of page 11) the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the claim features are necessarily rooted in computer technology, and include particular processes and devices for distributing computing load among various devices within a network. Thus, the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 analysis above, the focus of the claims is on a method implemented on a generic computing system for processing a consumer savings program. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on a certain independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. When viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use. No incentive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Applicant’s claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is supported in paragraphs 2-6 of the specification.
In conclusion, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
An updated prior art search has been performed and no art could be identified, individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every elements of the claims at this time.
Future Amendments
Applicant is advised to avoid new matter in complying with these requirements, and to refer to the locations of support in the specification when making such amendments. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without citing the support in the specification.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695