DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
***It is noted that the “bank core (BC) adapter engine” is described in the Specification ¶[0061] as:
“ As used herein, the term engine, in association with the BC adapter engine 107 and the community adapter engine 118, denotes software engines. As understood by those of skill in the art, a software engine is a core component of a complex software system that executes the foundation or crucial task for other programs. In the embodiments, the software engine is executed on a computer controller. .”
3. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of (i) retrieving programs related data from bank cores, each bank core representing one of a plurality of institutions associated with a respective plurality of users and (ii) normalizing the retrieved programs related data wherein the bank core adapter engine comprises a data retrieval module executed to retrieve the programs related data from each bank core in a respective native data format and a data normalization module executed to transform the programs related data from each native data format into a unified data structure in the memory having a common format, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention provides for a software system that retrieves program-related account data from multiple bank systems and converts that data into a shared, consistent format, and creates a ledger that combines the normalized information so users can see multiple accounts and transactions as if they were one account, which is a fundamental economic practice.
The mere nominal recitation of at least one hardware processor, a memory coupled to at least one hardware processor, wherein the memory stores instructions that ,when executed by the processor cause the processor to implement claimed functions, and a bank core adapter engine do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under step 2A, prong one of the Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, prong two of the PEG, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— a system comprising a processor, a memory and a bank core adapter engine. The processor(s), memory, and engine, are recited at a very high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 9 and 14 and hence claims 9 and 14 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim(s) does/do 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 elements of a system comprising at least one hardware processor and memory having instructions executable by the processor, and bank core adapter engine amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-19 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-19 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and under PTO guidance do not fall into one of the groupings of abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. -See MPEP§ 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020), in particular, Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). As indicated in the MPEP § 2106, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”).
Beginning with Prong One, step 2A of the eligibility analysis, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Guidance is “[certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk, insurance); commercial. . . interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; . . . sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or instructions)].” See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Here, apart from the recited systems, i.e., at least one hardware processor, a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor cause the processor to perform operations, as claimed, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the category of “methods of organizing human activity.” It is noted that a bank core adapter engine is defined as “software” in ¶[0061] of the Specification.
In the 101 analysis in the rejection above, the Examiner identifies and considers each of the underlying steps for the claims as a basis for describing and explaining the recited abstract idea. For example, the Examiner identifies the underlying steps of claim 1—i.e., the “retrieving programs related data, normalizing the retrieved programs related data, and transform the programs related data from each native data format into a unified data structure in memory having a common format. “—and explains that they describe the concept of a software system that pulls program-related account data from multiple bank cores and converts that data into a shared, consistent format, and creates a ledger that combines the normalized information so users can see multiple accounts and transactions as if they were one account, which is a fundamental economic practice. The Examiner’s approach here is consistent with USPTO guidance.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner incorrectly characterizes the claimed invention as a fundamental economic practice and overlooks the language of the claims and their focus because while the invention facilitates collaborative financial goals (a context), and that the focus of the claims is on how this is achieved technologically, through a specialized engine and ledger mechanism that unifies data. The argument is not convincing.
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Here the claims recite the use of generic computer components, i.e., memory and a processor to implement the claimed invention.
Regarding the argument that the claims of the instant application are similar to the features recited in the claims at issue in Enfish, the claims in Enfish were not simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices, mathematical formulas performed on any general purpose computer, or generalized steps performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. The patent claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory through use of a specific data structure. In Enfish, The claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computer could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that the financial transaction normalization system architecture of the instant application converts transaction data into a common or standard format in order to view all data as a single financial account and solves a technical interoperability problem in networked banking environments similar to the how DDR upheld claims rooted in computer networking to solve an Internet-specific problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The patent claims in the instant application do not address problems unique to the Internet. In DDR, the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet. In particular, the court said that “these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” The court concluded that “instead of the computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending the website visitor to the third-party website that appears to be connected with the clicked advertisement, the claimed system generates and directs the visitor to t[a] hybrid web page that presents product information from the third-party and visual ‘look and feel’ elements from the host website. When the limitations of the … patent’s asserted claims are taken together as an ordered combination, the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional ‘use of the Internet.’” The DDR claims “do not broadly and generically claim ‘use of the Internet’ to achieve the desired result, but instead “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result.” Id. at 1258. Claims that specify how to overcome a technological challenge are eligible. The claims here do not solve a technological problem with a technological solution.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that under step 2A prong two, the claims incorporate additional elements amounting to a practical technological implementation because the claims recite use of at least one hardware processor and memory and the inclusion of specific hardware elements ties the processes to a particular machine. The argument is not persuasive. Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claims confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohaptra, 842 F. APP' x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Applicant argues that the normalization operation is specified as transforming data from bank-specific formats into a unified common format in memory. This goes beyond simply collecting information or displaying results; it is a data transformation that yields a new, unified data structure (the ledger). Such transformation of data to a different state or thing (from disorganized, incompatible formats to a structured unified format) is a hallmark of integration into a practical application, as recognized in MPEP § 2106.05(c) (transformation of an article or data can indicate a practical application).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to 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 exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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).
Applicant contends that “The ledger is explicitly recited as a data structure enabling a single account view of multi-source data,” and that this amounts to an improvement in the functioning of the computer platform itself.
The argument is not persuasive. In determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Applicant argues that akin to improvements in McRO, the claims amount to an improvement in the functioning of the computer platform itself. The argument is not persuasive. In McRO, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id, at 1316.
Unlike in McRO, the recited processor, memory storing instructions executable by the processor and a bank core adapter engine, i.e., software are not a rule-based improvement of a technological process. The claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving computer animation through the use of specific rules to set morph weights and transition parameters between phonemes. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process.” The claims at issue in McRo described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters.
In contrast, Applicant’s claims address retrieving program-related account data from multiple bank institutions and converting that data into a shared, consistent format, and creating a ledger that combines the normalized information so users can see multiple accounts and transactions as if they were one account. The claims in McRO were directed to an improvement in the operation of the computer at a task, rather than applying a computer to perform generic data manipulation steps, as in the claims of the instant application. See id, at 1314.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific arrangement of software modules working together rather than a mere result or outcome and covers a multi-step technical process and therefore is indicative or a practical application. The argument is not convincing. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The claims are directed to an improvement in a business process not an improvement in technology. The claims here use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity.
The Examiner fails to see, and the Applicant fails to point out, how the steps are unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application.
On pages 15-16, Applicant argues that under Step 2B, the specific architecture claimed is a nonconventional arrangement of components yielding a novel functionality.
The argument is not convincing. Novelty is a question of whether the claimed invention is new. Inventiveness in the Alice/Mayo framework is the search for “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The inventiveness inquiry of §101 should therefore not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of §102 or obviousness inquiry of § 103. A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304.
The applicant argues that the claimed invention is similar to the claims found in Bascom. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, the court found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea under step one. Id. at 1347-49. Under step two, the court found that the limitation of the claims, taken individually, recited a generic computer, network, and Internet components which were not inventive themselves. Id. at 1349-52. However, the court found that the ordered combination of these limitations provided the requisite inventive concept. Id. The claimed and described inventive concept was the “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Id. at 1350. The design permitted the filtering tool to have “both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server.” Id. This was not customary or generic, and the claims did not preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet—instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was a “technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id. The court thus distinguished ineligible “abstract-idea-based solutions[s] implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way” from the eligible “technology-based solution” and software based invention[] that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.”” Id. at 1351 (citation omitted).
The claims in the instant application do not require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network. The claims in this application specify retrieving programs related data from banking systems, normalizing the data by transforming the programs related data from each native data format into a unified data structure in memory having a common format, but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of retrieving, normalizing, and transforming data by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.
Applicant argues that the use of distinct modules operating in a pipeline to achieve the unified format is not a trivial implementation and that the claimed invention recites a carefully crafted solution, not an off the shelf technique. The argument is not persuasive because the claims only recite generic processor couple to memory that stores instructions executable by the processor to perform the claimed steps. The claims do not recite an improvement to technology. The claims recite an improvement in a business process that uses generic computer components to run software in their ordinary capacity. In other words, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, or any other technology or technical field.
The remaining arguments are moot because of the amendments to the claims.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
5. 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 ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (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 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights