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 are not directed to an abstract idea but to a system that converts preference data…
The Office asserts that both can be true. The applicant’s argument does not indicate why a system that converts preference data does not comprise an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The features allow for converting the preference data format…offering an innovative way to manage a deposit system for users to customize amounts from deposits to allocate to bill payments on a deposit-by-deposit basis, even when the users input the preference data in a non-per-deposit format, incorporating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
The Office asserts that the asserted conversion does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or any technical field or technology, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (transformation of data does not apply), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and Vanda Memo). The claims appear to represent an administrative process implemented by generically claimed computer elements performing generic activities. The conversion process claimed does not provide any detail which might be considered meaningful or is not claimed to be performed by an particular machine.
Applicant argues claim 1 is analogous to Example 42, claim 1 because the present claim also allows users to share data.
The Office asserts that the claims, nor the specification recite the sharing of data, let alone the sharing of data in the same vein as that of the claim of example 42.
Applicant also argues the claims recite details regarding a particular solution to a particular problem, which are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The Office assumes the particular problem being addressed is converting non-per-deposit data to per-deposit data, but the particular solution is not present. The claims generally recite this process with no detail regarding how the conversion is performed, let alone details which might be considered unconventional, non-routine or not well-understood.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 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 and converting the preference data from a non-per-deposit format into a per-deposit format associating each deposit of the portion of deposits with a specific transfer amount associated with each deposit of the portion of the deposits that will be allocated to the bill payment, wherein a sum of the specific transfer amounts across the portion of the deposits corresponds to a bill payment amount;
receive an indication that a deposit of the portion of the deposits has been received by the first account; and
transfer the specific transfer amount associated with the deposit from the first account to a second account, wherein the second account is associated with the bill payment.
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 nominally related to the abstract idea. is considered insignificant extrasolution activity because it is
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.
Claim 2 merely narrows the transfer process.
Claim 3 merely narrows the accounts.
Claim 4 further narrows the billing period, transfer amounts, deposits and further determines a second billing period, a second portion of deposits, generally regenerating transfer preferences and further defining the first quantity of deposits, narrowing the abstract idea.
Claim 6 further defines the indication, the deposit, and specific transfer, and receives a second indication and transfers a second amount, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further narrows the first amount.
Claim 8 further narrows the transfer process.
Claim 19 address a variation between the billing frequency and a deposit frequency, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Claim 20 determines if a second deposit is below range or above range, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights