DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of the previous office action dated 02/11/2026 is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections
Again, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Claim 1 (being representative ) is directed to the abstract idea of liquidation management and forecasting transaction and performing certain actions. According to the specification, the application relates to “liquidation management operation” and provides a computing system which implements liquidation strategy techniques executing a liquidation model for minimizing liquidation failure risk (see Fig. 3). It is maintained that the concept of “liquidity management” is considered abstract because it can be grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity because liquidity management involves legal interactions such as meeting legal obligations and streamlining financial transactions and/or processes related to optimizing working capital and strategic currency use.
Wherein the applicant asserts that the claims are directed to improving the performance of a blockchain ledger, here, it is maintained that the claims are directed to the concept of “liquidity management”. Beyond the abstract idea of “liquidity management”, the claims merely recite additional elements (i.e., a network communication interface, one or more processors and memory) at a high level of generality performing functions (e.g., storing instruction, accessing…, optimizing…; receiving….; determining…; monitoring…) requiring computer functions that are well-understood routine and conventional [see buySAFE 765 F.3d at 1355 (“That a computer [that] receives and sends information over at network…is not even arguably inventive”)].
Wherein the Applicant asserts that the claims are addressed to a network computer system which the claims recite, “training a machine learned or artificial intelligence model to output…a fluctuation level…based on the predicted fluctuation level… perform one or more actions to prevent the balance of the corresponding digital wallet from breaching the low liquidity threshold.” Provides a technical solution to a technical problem by training a model to prevent the a digital wallet from breaching a low liquidity threshold…” it is should mentioned that On April 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Recentive Analytics against Fox Corporation, holding that the asserted AI and machine learning patents were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Recentive decision reinforces that AI and machine learning claims remain patent eligible. The focus, however, must shift from the trained machine learning model simply generating a result (i.e., generating schedules or analyzing networks as was the case in Recentive) to how the machine learning model performs the task in a technically novel manner. [see Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp.,.Thus the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 12 is directed to a method and claim 20 is directed toa medium.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of liquidation management by forecasting transactions and performing certain actions which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity in prong one of step 2A (see 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance)
Claim 1 recites, “ determine,..., a low liquidity threshold...of a transaction entity...; dynamically monitor a balance...of the transaction entity, wherein dynamically monitoring includes forecasting one or more transactions that are to be initiated...in an upcoming time interval; and when the balance...breaches the low liquidity threshold, perform one or more actions.” Which according recites an abstract idea-e.g., fundamental economic principles of practices including legal interactions including sales activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements (e.g., network communication interface, one or more processors, memory, digital wallet etc.,) represent the user of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does no more that generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts of liquidation management by forecasting transactions.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of liquidation management generally linking the judicial exception toa particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further the describes steps within to carry out the judicial exception
Independent claim 12 and 20 are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692