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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/5/2025 has been entered.
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.
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 a bank core adapter engine configured for (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 by converting transaction level data received from the plurality of institutions into a single common form, language, or standard format, the bank core adapter engine comprising: a bank account retriever module configured for retrieving account reference data from a bank core of a user of the plurality of users corresponding to the user’s financial institution; and a bank account normalizer configured for receiving an output of account reference data…; wherein normalizing further includes (i) obtaining a bank reference via the user’s bank core, (ii) mapping the bank referent to user associated with bank reference, (iii) normalizing the bank reference …and (iv) storing normalized bank reference in a ledger manager module…; wherein the ledger manager module is configured to create a ledger based on normalized program related data; and wherein the ledger enables at least one of the respective plurality of users to view the normalized program related data as a single account, 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 allows for one or more users to plan, conduct, and share financial goals and transactions across communities of different users and financial institutions, including converting transaction level data received from the plurality of financial institutions into common format, language or standard format, which is a fundamental economic practice. The mere nominal recitation of a generic system, and an 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, an engine, and one or more processors. The system, an engine, and one or more processors 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)).
The newly added claim limitations of converting transaction level data received from the plurality of institutions into a single common form, language, or standard format is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity. 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- see (MPEP 2106.05(d).
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, engine, and one or more processors (claims 1 and 14) and an engine and one or more processors (claim 9), amounts 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.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the additional elements found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities under step 2A prong two, are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the one or more processors implementing the bank core adapter engine are anything other than generic computer components and the following publications demonstrate the well-understood routine and conventional nature of the additional element of converting transaction level data received from the plurality of institutions into a single common form, language, or standard format:
US 2003/0191703 (Chen et al.);
US 2022/0155796 (Haidar et al.);
US 2014/0201104 (Simpson).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the converting transaction level data received from the plurality of institutions into a single common form, language, or standard format limitations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 3. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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. In response to the amendment of claim 1, the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection.
The remaining arguments concerning the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the claims go beyond merely reciting the alleged abstract idea and recites significantly more. The applicants further argue that the amended independent claims now recite, “converting transaction level data received from the plurality of institutions into a single common form, language, or standard format” which results in data being sharable between the respective customers of corresponding ones of financial institutions.
The argument is not convincing. 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)), and are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the exception.-see MPEP 2106.05(d) as is the case here.
Furthermore, 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., generic processor(s) implementing a bank core adapter engine, the bank core adapter engine described in the Specification as denoting software engines-see [0061]. The processor(s) implementing software engines are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry specified at a high level of generality, cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
5. 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