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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 7/24/2025. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The method of claim 1 and system of claim 11 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Using the text of claim 1 as an example, independent claims 1 and 11 recite:
1. A process for preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account, the process comprising:
providing a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor for using an open banking application (OBA) to access a user's bank account via over an electronic network for continuously analyzing past and contemporaneous credits, debits, and transactions in the user's bank account to predict a cash flow gap;
the OBA transmitting alerts via a short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notification regarding the predicted cash flow gap to an authorized computing device;
the OBA transmitting the user's banking information to a third party to score the risk of providing options to cover the cash flow gap;
the OBA transmitting via the short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notifications selectable options based upon the scored risk to fund the predicted cash flow gap;
wherein upon acceptance of an option: providing funding from a settlement account at a banking source;
transferring provided funding via an automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), or another electronic network to the user's bank account to cover the predicted cash flow gap;
debiting the user's bank account in accordance with the option, after a predetermined condition, and
transferring funds back to the banking source via an automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), or another electronic network.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claims 1 and 11 each recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claims 1 and 11 are each directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted each of claims 1 and 11 only recite the commercial interaction of preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account by providing funding in accordance with a condition. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) discussing agreements in the form of contracts and mitigating settlement risk as examples of commercial or legal interactions. Further, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) also notes an example of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations includes processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications. Accordingly, each of claims 1 and 11 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Although the claims have been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claims also fall in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) lists mitigating settlement risk as an example of fundamental economic principles or practices. Here, providing options to fund a predicted cash flow gap based on a risk score is the fundamental economic practice of making a loan.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element 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. Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims only recite the additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, open banking application (OBA), electronic network, short messaging service (SMS) message, email, native operating system (OS) push notification, automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), another electronic network and authorized computing device to perform a process for preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account, the process comprising: accessing a user's bank account for continuously analyzing past and contemporaneous credits, debits, and transactions in the user's bank account to predict a cash flow gap; transmitting alerts regarding the predicted cash flow gap to an authorized computing device; transmitting the user's banking information to a third party to score the risk of providing options to cover the cash flow gap; transmitting selectable options based upon the scored risk to fund the predicted cash flow gap; wherein upon acceptance of an option: providing funding from a settlement account at a banking source; transferring provided funding to the user's bank account to cover the predicted cash flow gap; debiting the user's bank account in accordance with the option, after a predetermined condition, and transferring funds back to the banking source. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claims 1 and 11 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 1 and 11, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, open banking application (OBA), electronic network, short messaging service (SMS) message, email, native operating system (OS) push notification, automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), another electronic network and authorized computing device to perform a process for preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account, the process comprising: accessing a user's bank account for continuously analyzing past and contemporaneous credits, debits, and transactions in the user's bank account to predict a cash flow gap; transmitting alerts regarding the predicted cash flow gap to an authorized computing device; transmitting the user's banking information to a third party to score the risk of providing options to cover the cash flow gap; transmitting selectable options based upon the scored risk to fund the predicted cash flow gap; wherein upon acceptance of an option: providing funding from a settlement account at a banking source; transferring provided funding to the user's bank account to cover the predicted cash flow gap; debiting the user's bank account in accordance with the option, after a predetermined condition, and transferring funds back to the banking source amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, [0040]. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including the Mastercard Send network (claims 4, 14); debit card (claim 7); user’s mobile device (claims 9, 19), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheshwari (US 2018/0060843) in view of Vancini (US 9,928,490).
Claim 1 recites:
A process for preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account, the process comprising: (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0039], process 300 for implementing overdraft protection)
providing a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor for using an open banking application (OBA) to access a user's bank account via over an electronic network for continuously analyzing past and contemporaneous credits, debits, and transactions in the user's bank account to predict a cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, Fig. 1, [0019], processor, CRM, instructions, network; Fig. 1, [0028]-[0030], application 175; Fig. 3, [0049], determine potential account overdraft 308)
the OBA transmitting alerts via a short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notification regarding the predicted cash flow gap to an authorized computing device; (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0051], notify user 310 via mobile app executing at the user device 110, text, email)
the OBA transmitting the user's banking information to a third party to score the risk of providing options to cover the cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, [0057], “third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”)
the OBA transmitting via the short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notifications selectable options based upon the scored risk to fund the predicted cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0054], provide options 312, mobile app displays options; [0051], app, text, email)
wherein upon acceptance of an option: (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0054], user selects option)
providing funding from a settlement account at a banking source; (Maheshwari, [0058], apply conditional loan to account. Maheshwari does not specifically disclose a settlement account. Vancini, 9:27-9:44, discloses requested funds are moved from the sender's account to an Originating Depository Financial Institution (ODFI) settlement account of the sender's bank, and at step 525, the funds are transferred via the ACH system 170 to a settlement account associated with the recipient's bank. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the application of a loan as in Maheswari to include the settlement account of Vancini to utilize an Automatic Clearing House (ACH) system as discussed in Vancini, 6:22-6:60, and Maheshwari, [0032]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Vancini in Maheshwari since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, both are in the field of transferring funds and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.)
transferring provided funding via an automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), or another electronic network to the user's bank account to cover the predicted cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, [0058], apply conditional loan to account; [0032], fund transfer using ACH; [0019], payment network; [0012], real time)
debiting the user's bank account in accordance with the option, after a predetermined condition, and (Maheshwari, [0060], automatic pay back, expected pay back date)
transferring funds back to the banking source via an automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), or another electronic network. (Maheshwari, [0060], automatic pay back, expected pay back date; [0032], fund transfer using ACH; [0019], payment network)
Claim 2 recites:
The process according to claim 1, wherein the funding can be provided from the banking source's settlement account at a payment service provider. (Maheshwari, Fig. 1, [0029], payment provider server 170; Fig. 2, [0033]-[0035], payment provider, funding sources. As noted above, Maheshwari does not disclose a settlement account. Vancini, 9:27-9:44, discloses use of a settlement account in transferring funds. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Maheswari to include the settlement account of Vancini to utilize an Automatic Clearing House (ACH) system as discussed in Vancini, 6:22-6:60, and Maheshwari, [0032].)
Claim 3 recites:
The process according to claim 2, wherein the third party for scoring risk is an earn wage access provider that accepts the risk, clears the payment, and transfers the funds to the user’s bank account. (Maheshwari, [0057], “third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”; [0058], apply loan to account; [0038], transaction history includes paycheck deposit. No special definition is given to “earn wage access provider” in the claims or specification. For example, please see Applicant’s specification, [0025], noting “The cash flow gap funds are provided by an earned wage access provider.”)
Claim 4 recites:
The process according to claim 3, wherein the funds are transferred electronically to the user’s bank account using the real-time payments network (RTP) or the Mastercard Send network. (Maheshwari, [0012], deposited in real time; [0019], payments network. See also Vancini, 6:22-6:60.)
Claim 5 recites:
The process according to claim 3, wherein when predetermined conditions are meet and when the user's bank account has enough funds, then the earned wage access provider initiates an automated clearing house (ACH) debit instruction to electronically transfer funds from the user's bank account to the earned wage access provider's settlement account at the payment service provider for repayment. (Maheshwari, [0060], automatic pay back, adequate funds; [0032], ACH. As noted above, Maheshwari does not disclose a settlement account. Vancini, 9:27-9:44, discloses use of a settlement account in transferring funds. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Maheswari to include the settlement account of Vancini to utilize an Automatic Clearing House (ACH) system as discussed in Vancini, 6:22-6:60, and Maheshwari, [0032].)
Claim 6 recites:
The process according to claim 3, wherein an open banking application is authorized to access the user’s bank account's debit, credit, and transaction history to gather the bank account's open banking data. (Maheswari, [0028]-[0030], application 175; [0038], historical information; [0057], transaction history)
Claim 7 recites:
The process according to claim 4, wherein the funds can be credited to a user’s debit card account or transferred to the bank account. (Maheshwari, [0033], bank account, debit card; [0054], options include transferring funds; [0019], debit rails)
Claim 8 recites:
The process according to claim 6, wherein the payment service provider and earned wage access provider score the risk of the repayment using the open banking data. (Maheshwari, [0057], “The payment service provider or a third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history with the payment service provider”)
Claim 9 recites:
The process according to claim 1, wherein the alerts and options are provided via a short messaging service (SMS), email, or native operating system (OS) push notification to the user’s mobile device or computing device. (Maheswari, [0051], notify user via mobile app executing at user device 110, text, email)
Claim 10 recites:
The process according to claim 9, wherein the account holder can approve or reject aspects of the options to fund the cash flow gap. (Maheshwari, [0052], “ignore” button; [0054], user may select options)
Claim 11 recites:
A system for predicting and funding cash flow gaps in a bank account, the system comprising: (Maheshwari, Fig. 1, [0017], system 100)
an open banking application (OBA) with an open data application program interface (API) executing on a computing device for analyzing past and contemporaneous credits, debits, and transactions in the user’s bank account to predict a cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, Fig. 1, [0028]-[0030], application 175; Fig. 3, [0049], determine potential account overdraft 308; [0033], [0039], API)
the OBA transmits the user's banking information to a third party to score the risk of providing options to cover the cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, [0057], “third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”)
the system providing alerts via the short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notifications regarding the predicted cash flow gap; (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0051], notify user 310 via mobile app executing at the user device 110, text, email)
the system providing selectable options based upon the scored risk via the short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notifications to fund the predicted cash flow gap; and (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0054], provide options 312 including loan, mobile app displays options, options may be based on risk assessment; [0051], app, text, email)
wherein a payment service provider transfers funds to the user’s bank account to cover the predicted cash flow gap upon acceptance of an option; and (Maheshwari, Fig. 3, [0054], user selects option; [0058], conditional loan to cover detected overdraft. Maheshwari does not specifically disclose fund transfers. Vancini, 9:27-9:44, discloses requested funds are moved from the sender's account to an Originating Depository Financial Institution (ODFI) settlement account of the sender's bank, and at step 525, the funds are transferred via the ACH system 170 to a settlement account associated with the recipient's bank. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the application of a loan as in Maheswari to include the transfer of funds of Vancini to utilize an Automatic Clearing House (ACH) system as discussed in Vancini, 6:22-6:60, and Maheshwari, [0032].)
wherein the funds are provided by a funding source. (Maheshwari, [0057], lender; [0058], apply conditional loan to account)
Claim 12 recites:
The system according to claim 11, wherein the third party scoring the risk is an earned wage access provider. (Maheshwari, [0057], “third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”. No special definition is given to “earn wage access provider” in the claims or specification. For example, please see Applicant’s specification, [0025], noting “The cash flow gap funds are provided by an earned wage access provider.”)
Claim 13 recites:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the earn wage access provider accepts the risk, clears the payment, and transfers the funds to the user’s bank account. (Maheshwari, [0057], [0058], conditional loan, apply conditional loan to account)
Claim 14 recites:
The system according to claim 13, wherein the funds are transferred electronically to the user’s bank account using the real-time payments network (RTP) or the Mastercard Send network. (Maheshwari, [0012], deposited in real time; [0019], payments network. See also Vancini, 6:22-6:60.)
Claim 15 recites:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the funds are provided from the earned wage access provider's settlement account at the payment service provider. (Maheshwari, Fig. 1, [0029], payment provider server 170; Fig. 2, [0033]-[0035], payment provider, funding sources. As noted above, Maheshwari does not disclose a settlement account. Vancini, 9:27-9:44, discloses use of a settlement account in transferring funds. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Maheswari to include the settlement account of Vancini to utilize an Automatic Clearing House (ACH) system as discussed in Vancini, 6:22-6:60, and Maheshwari, [0032].)
Claim 16 recites:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the payment service provider credits and transfers funds back to the earned wage access provider's settlement account at the payment service provider after a predetermined period or a predetermined bank account balance. (Maheshwari, [0060], automatic pay back, adequate funds; [0032], ACH. As noted above, Maheshwari does not disclose a settlement account. Vancini, 9:27-9:44, discloses use of a settlement account in transferring funds. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Maheswari to include the settlement account of Vancini to utilize an Automatic Clearing House (ACH) system as discussed in Vancini, 6:22-6:60, and Maheshwari, [0032].)
Claim 17 recites:
The system according to claim 11, wherein the open banking application is pre- authorized to access the user’s bank account's debit, credit, and transaction history. (Maheshwari, [0033], grant permission)
Claim 18 recites:
The system according to claim 11, wherein the payment service provider and an earned wage access provider score the risk of the repayment using the open banking data. (Maheshwari, [0057], “The payment service provider or a third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”; [0054], internal risk assessment, external creditworthiness)
Claim 19 recites:
The system according to claim 11, wherein the alerts and options are provided via a short messaging service (SMS), email, or native operating system (OS) push notification to the user’s mobile device or computing device. (Maheswari, [0051], notify user via mobile app executing at the user device 110, text, email)
Claim 20 recites:
The system according to claim 19, wherein the user can approve or reject aspects of the options to fund the cash flow gaps. (Maheshwari, [0052], “ignore” button; [0054], user may select options)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 18.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments concerning Step 2A, prong one, the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas includes commercial interactions. As recited in the claims, the invention is directed to preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account by providing funding in accordance with a condition, which is clearly within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP 2106. Applicant argues “Claim 1 now recites "providing a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor for using an open banking application (OBA) to access a user's bank account via over an electronic network for continuously analyzing past and contemporaneous credits, debits, and transactions in the user's bank account to predict a cash flow gap; the OBA transmitting alerts via a short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notification regarding the predicted cash flow gap to an authorized computing device; the OBA transmitting via the short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notifications selectable options to fund the predicted cash flow gap; wherein upon acceptance of an option: providing funding from a settlement account at a banking source; transferring provided funding via an automated clearing house (ACH), real-time payments network (RTP), or another electronic network to the user's bank account to cover the predicted cash flow gap."” In response, it is respectfully submitted that these features merely implement the abstract idea using generic component components, which does not preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element 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 indicative of integration into a practical application include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying the judicial exception with a particular machine, effecting transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful was beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Applicant argues “The claims recite more than generic implementation of a financial concept. They describe a specific, structured processes carried out by an open banking application (OBA) that accesses real-time banking data through authorized APIs, analyzes transactional activity continuously, and coordinates funding decisions through third-party risk scoring mechanisms. Upon user acceptance, the system initiates automated fund transfers through electronic payment networks (e.g., RTP or ACH), and coordinates future repayment through preauthorized debit instructions. The Applicant's invention teaches executing applications on processor to monitor a bank account over an electronic network, provides alerts over an electronic network responsive to the monitoring, contacting a third party for options to resolve the alert over an electronic network; and providing options to resolve the alert over an electronic network; and then transferring funds over the electronic network to resolve the alert. Accordingly, these elements: (1) Solve a concrete technological problem in banking (i.e., real-time cash flow prediction and resolution); (2) Improve the functionality of financial platforms via automation and preauthorized API access; (3) Reduce the need for manual financial tracking or offline decisions; and (4) Operate within technical infrastructures (banking APIs, messaging protocols, and settlement networks).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. As shown above, the Applicant admits that the present invention merely automates a manual process. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(g) discussing an example of activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity include presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price. Here, financial data is gathered, and subsequently a loan offer is made.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2B, Step 2B is directed to whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (AKA “significantly more”) than the judicial exception. The Applicant argues “The integration of real-time banking APIs with predictive analytics, third-party risk scoring, and automated transaction execution is not a fundamental economic practice or generic use of a computer. It represents a non-conventional arrangement of components that provides a new and useful functionality in financial account management when compared to court decisions listed in MPEP §2106.05(d).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant themselves describes the use of APIs in the background section of the application. The feature “predictive analytics” is not recited in the claims. That a “third party” conducts risk scoring or that a transaction execution is “automated” do not constitute inventive concepts. MPEP 2106.05(d) gives examples recognized by the courts of known computer functions including “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “performing repetitive calculations”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, “recording a customer’s order”, “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, all of which directly correspond to the generically claimed operations of the present claims, which claim preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account by providing funding in accordance with a condition. MPEP 2106.05(d) further notes “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking”. The recited functions of preventing cashflow gaps in a user's bank account by providing funding in accordance with a condition have been accomplished by humans manually monitoring their finances and borrowing money in anticipation of a cashflow gap for generations before the effective filing date.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and the amended claims are addressed in detail above. Applicant argues “Maheshwari fails to teach several of these features including an open banking application accessing a user's bank account via an electronic network to continuously analyze it for past and contemporaneous activities; OBA transmitting the user's banking information to a third party to score the risk of providing options to cover the cash flow gap; the OBA transmitting via the short messaging service (SMS) message, email, or native operating system (OS) push notifications selectable options based upon the scored risk to fund the predicted cash flow gap." The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see Maheshwari, Fig. 1, [0028]-[0030], discussing application 175; Fig. 3, [0049], disclosing determining potential account overdraft at 308; Fig. 3, [0051], showing and discussing notifying user 310 via mobile app executing at the user device 110, and also disclosing notification by text and email; and [0057], which explicitly discloses “third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”. The Applicant further argues “Maheshwari also fails to disclose a pre-defined ACH flow or banking infrastructure for any loan repayment”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maheshwari, [0032], discusses ACH fund transfers. Vancini has been added to show banking infrastructure in response to the amendment filed 7/24/2025. The Applicant further argues “Nor does Maheshwari disclose any integration with specific external financial APIs such as OBA or real-time payment systems.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see Maheshwari, [0030]-[0033], [0039], discussing retrieval of balances via API and application 175. Applicant further argues “Maheshwari fails to disclose an earned wage access provider as both a risk assessor and funding source.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Maheshwari, [0057], explicitly discloses “third party lender may offer loans or a credit line based on the user 105's risk profile, as derived from the user 105's transaction history and/or credit history”; [0058], apply loan to account; [0038], transaction history includes paycheck deposit. No special definition is given to “earn wage access provider” in the claims or specification. For example, please see Applicant’s specification, [0025], noting “The cash flow gap funds are provided by an earned wage access provider” and Applicant’s specification, [0003], noting “Earned wage access (EWA) is a financial service”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 11694168; US 20220284421; US 20220114566; US 20180308070; WO 2016147730; US 20100030687; US 20090210327; and US 5465206
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Gregory Harper whose telephone number is (571)272-5481. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached at (571) 272-6709. 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.
/GREGORY HARPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3692