Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10 and 18-20 are pending. Claim 10 is canceled and incorporated into claims 1 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by allowing for updates to GUIs.
The Office asserts that the GUI merely performs aspects of the abstract idea (modify the billing frequency). Indicating an elimination of the variation is merely an insignificant extrasolution activity tangentially related to the abstract idea. Together these limitations amount to adding the words “apply it”, or the like to the abstract idea and insignificant extrasolution activity.
The applicant argues the claims recite an improvement over prior art systems as they recite specific details regarding a particular solution to a particular problem, which are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The Office asserts that the applicant provides no basis for the asserted improvement. Per MPEP 2106.05(a):
In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Based on the above, the claims are determined to comprise a judicial exception with mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extrasolution activity.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A system comprising:
a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, the processing circuit configured to:
determine, based on previous transactions from a first account to a second account, a billing period based on a billing frequency corresponding to a bill payment;
receive deposit data of the first account, wherein the deposit data corresponds to historical deposits into the first account;
determine, based on the deposit data, a deposit frequency for deposits that will be made into the first account based on the historical deposits into the first account;
model the deposit frequency with the billing frequency to identify a variation between the deposit frequency and the billing frequency:
generate and provide, by a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, a variation interface corresponding to the variation, wherein the variation interface comprises at least one actionable element;
responsive to a selection of the at least one actionable element:
modify the billing frequency to eliminate the variation between the billing frequency and the deposit frequency: and
automatically update the variation interface to indicate an elimination of the variation between the billing frequency and the deposit frequency;
model, using one or more models, the deposit data to determine a portion of the deposits that will be made into a first account that will occur during the billing period before the portion of the deposits have occurred;
generate transfer preferences for the portion of the deposits based on receiving, from the GUI of the user device, preference data corresponding to the portion of the deposits, the transfer preferences including amounts associated with each deposit of the portion of the deposits that will be allocated to the bill payment;
receive an indication that a deposit of the portion of the deposits has been received by the first account; and
transfer an amount associated with the deposit from the first account to a second account, wherein the second account is associated with the bill payment and the amount transferred is based on a bill payment amount.
Claim 18 is similar.
The underlined elements of the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity, managing personal behavior because the claims are directed to managing deposit amounts for bill payments.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims include additional elements amounting to adding the words “Apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea. The additional limitations are computer elements, generically recited, for implementing the abstract idea (processors, GUI, models and user device). The updating step is considered insignificant extrasolution activity because it is nominally related to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons noted above. The updating step is mere data gathering similar to updating an activity log as in Ultramercial.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and, as a whole and in combination, the claims comprise the abstract idea with the words “apply it” and insignificant extrasolution activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694