Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/430,448

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTHORIZING ACCOUNT-SPECIFIC TRANSACTION REQUESTS

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Feb 01, 2024
Examiner
BAGGOT, BREFFNI
Art Unit
3621
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Wells Fargo Bank N A
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allowance Rate
149 granted / 425 resolved
-16.9% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
459
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 425 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
Examiner thanks attorney for amendment to advance prosecution AIA DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-20 examined. Effective date 02/1/2024 Amended 1 11 19 Canceled none New none Applicant(s): Wells Fargo Inventor(s): Ramsay Huntley Judson Murchie Timothy Craig Seagren 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 The pending claims are rejected under 35 USC 101. 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. The claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03) The claims and dependents are directed to statutory classes (1 machine 11 process 19 article of manufacture). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04). CLAIM 1 (independent claims 11 and 19 similar) A system comprising: O a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, the processing circuit configured to: O receive, from a graphical user interface (GUI) presented on a user device, a request associated with an offer O select one or more models based on the request and a first transaction instrument and a second transaction instrument by: - determining a desired output of the one or more models and - identifying, based on the request and the first transaction instrument and the second transaction instrument, at least one of the one or more models that generates the desired output with an accuracy exceeding a threshold, wherein the one or more models comprise at least one of a machine learning model, a statistical model, or a pattern recognition model -model, using the at least one of the one or more models, the request with the first transaction instrument and the second transaction instrument to generate a first amount and a second amount for the offer based on a category of the offer, wherein the first amount corresponds to [[a]] the first transaction instrument and the second amount corresponds to [[a]] the second transaction instrument O generate a first amount and a second amount for the offer based on a category of the offer, wherein the first amount corresponds to a first transaction instrument and the second amount corresponds to a second transaction instrument O generate and provide, to the GUI of the user device, an interface for display comprising the first amount in association with the first transaction instrument, the second amount in association with the second transaction instrument, an actionable element, and content associated with the offer O receive, from a merchant computing system, a transaction request corresponding to at least one of the first transaction instrument or the second transaction instrument, wherein the transaction request comprises transaction information associated with the offer and O authorize the transaction request for either the first amount based on the transaction request corresponding to the first transaction instrument or the second amount based on the transaction request corresponding to at least one of the first transaction instrument or the second transaction instrument. bold = judicial exception ‘apply it’ via additional element, generic, generally applied The pending claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an abstract idea, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity The claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such 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) Now, this abstract idea is computer-implemented. Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group(CAFC 2016) DEPENDENT CLAIMS Dependent claims 2-10 12-18 20 are the computer implemented idea of independent claims 1/11/19 plus the idea of Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016) Dependent claims 2 12 19 idea itself 3 13 idea itself 4 14 idea itself 5 15 idea itself 6 16 idea itself 7 17 idea itself 8 18 and 9 idea itself + additional element of mere display step MPEP 2106.05g update the interface 10 idea itself plus + additional element of Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016) Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04). The claim says one is to take the idea and “apply it” with generic elements generally applied. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element. The additional element -- recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element MPEP 2106.05 is mere applying the idea on a computer. See MPEP 2105, 2106 The elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts 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 for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements present only a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610). Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05) The additional elements present only a particular technological environment. The claim recites additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements 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 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 21056.05 Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008): “We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation” Response to Remarks Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but not persuasive. Applicant says not directed to abstract idea. Examiner The claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such 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) As to applicant argument that Improvement to technology or technical field Examiner Unfortunately Applicant simply uses a computer as a tool to organize human activity Convenience and accuracy (remarks p15) are inherent in use of a computer. The convenience and accuracy (remarks p14 bottom) is why computers are used, ubiquitous. Applicant did not improve a field but simply invoked a computer as a tool, just as in Alice clearing trades by computer, or in Bilski computer implemented trading a call with a put. Examiner did not assert well-understood, conventional, routine thus remarks p7 while interesting and probably relevant to many other cases, are not applicable to this case. POINT OF CONTACT Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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. BREFFNI BAGGOT Primary Examiner Art Unit 3621 /BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Sep 08, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §101
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Aug 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705620
DISPLAY FIXTURE CONFIGURATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12646086
METHODS, SYSTEMS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE, AND APPARATUS TO DETECT PROMOTION EVENTS
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12626273
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING A TRUE RETURN ON ADVERTISEMENT SALES VALUE USING SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM FACTORS TO ANALYZE ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS
2y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12608721
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING AND MANAGING REPUTATION OF ENTITIES AND INDUSTRIES THROUGH USE OF BEHAVIORAL CONNECTIONS
3y 9m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12608723
METHOD AND SYSTEM OF ACCESSING DATA AMONG A PLURALITY OF LOYALTY PROGRAMS
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+25.2%)
3y 5m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 425 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month