DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to Request for Reconsideration dated March 17, 2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, 15 and 17 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. 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
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a system claim. Claim 11 recites a method claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of processing transaction authorization requests including transaction information and updating an available balance. The idea is described by the following limitations:
determine a first available balance for a first account of a first account type based on pending transactions, fees, and interest of the first account representing a real-time amount of available funds of the first account and a second available balance for a second account of a second account type representing a real-time amount of available funds of the second account;
push the first available balance as a first single number and the second available balance as a second single number to authorization;
store the first available balance and the second available balance;
receive, a transaction authorization request for the first account including transaction information;
compare the transaction information to the stored first available balance of the first account;
based on the comparison, transmit an approval message;
transmit the transaction information;
configured to determine a first updated available balance for the first account based on the transaction information representing a real-time updated amount of available funds of the first account;
push the first updated available balance as a third single number, and
configured to store the first updated available balance.
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of processing transaction authorization requests including transaction information and updating an available balance. The idea is described by the following limitations:
determining a first available balance for a first account of a first account type based on pending transactions, fees, and interest of the first account representing a real-time amount of available funds of the first account and a second available balance for a second account of a second account type representing a real-time amount of available funds of the second account;
pushing the first available balance as a first single number and the second available balance as a second single number to authorization;
storing the first available balance and the second available balance;
receiving a transaction authorization request for the first account including transaction information;
comparing the transaction information to the stored first available balance of the first account;
based on the comparison, transmitting an approval message;
transmitting the transaction information;
determining a first updated available balance for the first account based on the transaction information representing a real-time updated amount of available funds of the first account;
pushing the first updated available balance as a third single number; and
storing, the first updated available balance.
Under a BRI, the independent claims as currently presented may reflect no more than conventional processing transaction authorization requests by comparing the information of a transaction to the balance available on an issuer line of credit. As a result, the abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions (including legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) (i.e., determining a first available balance for a first account of a first account type based on pending transactions, fees, and interest of the first account representing a real-time amount of available funds of the first account and a second available balance for a second account of a second account type representing a real-time amount of available funds of the second account; pushing the first available balance as a first single number and the second available balance as a second single number to authorization; storing the first available balance and the second available balance; receiving a transaction authorization request for the first account including transaction information; comparing the transaction information to the stored first available balance of the first account; based on the comparison, transmitting an approval message; transmitting the transaction information; determining a first updated available balance for the first account based on the transaction information representing a real-time updated amount of available funds of the first account; pushing the first updated available balance as a third single number; and storing, the first updated available balance.)
In the case of the instant claims, for example, the claims recite no more than retrieving data, transmitting data, storing data, receiving and comparing data, and determining data. (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites one or more first processors, one or more first non-transitory computer-readable mediums including instructions, an authorization engine of an authorization system, an issuing processor, a ledger data structure, a communication network, one or more second processors, one or more second non-transitory, computer-readable mediums including instructions, one or more processors, an available credit service, a payment network, and a line of credit engine.
Claim 11 recites an authorization engine of an authorization system, an issuing processor, a line of credit engine of a line of credit system, and an available credit service.
In particular, the claims only recite one or more first processors, one or more first non-transitory computer-readable mediums including instructions, authorization engine of an authorization system, an issuing processor, a ledger data structure, a communication network, one or more second processors, one or more second non-transitory, computer-readable mediums including instructions, one or more processors, an available credit service, a payment network, a line of credit engine, and a line of credit engine of a line of credit system which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more). The authorization engine and line of credit engine, as disclosed by the specification may be implemented by software and/or hardware, however it appears that they are both recited as software features in the claims at the moment.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. 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). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); performing repetitive calculations (Bancorp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“Each system or device in the computing environment may include one or more processors, memories, network interfaces (sometimes referred to herein as a “network circuit”) and user interfaces. The memory may store programming logic that, when executed by the processor, controls the operation of the corresponding computing system or device. The memory may also store data in databases. For example, the system 100, or the various components thereof can include one or more components or structures of functionality of computing devices depicted in FIG. 7. The network interfaces may allow the computing systems and devices to communicate wirelessly or otherwise, e.g., via a network. The various components of devices in the computing environment may be implemented via hardware (e.g., circuitry), software (e.g., executable code), or any combination thereof. Systems, devices, and components in FIG. 1 may be added, deleted, integrated, separated, and/or rearranged in various embodiments of the disclosure.” (See Applicant Spec para 26)
“The available credit service 132, the issuing processor aggregator 134, and the comparator 230 can each include one or more processing units, circuitry, or other logic device such as programmable logic array engine, or module, can be implemented in software and/or hardware, and can be separate components or a single component of an authorization engine 130. Similarly, the authorization engine 130 include one or more processing units, circuitry, or other logic device such as programmable logic array engine, or module, can be implemented in software and/or hardware, and can be separate components or a single component of a LOC engine 110. Similarly, the LOC engine 110 include one or more processing units, circuitry, or other logic device such as programmable logic array engine, or module and can be implemented in software and/or hardware.” (See Applicant Spec para 40)
“FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating example details of the electronic ledger 114, according to some implementations. The electronic ledger 114 may include the first loan, the second loan, the debit account 330, the prepaid account 340, the first available credit 312, the second available credit 322, the available funds 332, and the available balance 342 as included in the available credit service 132 in FIG. 3. The information in the electronic ledger 114 may correspond to the information in the available credit service 132, as the line of credit engine 110 transmits information including real-time available balance information to the authorization engine 130.” (See Applicant Spec para 46)
“An authorization engine may receive 510, from an issuing processor, a transaction authorization request including transaction information. The transaction authorization request may be to approve or deny a transaction. The transaction may be initiated by a cardholder at a merchant, prompting a chain of messages between various computing devices and/or servers to authorize the transaction. The transaction information may include a transaction amount and an account identifier of an account associated with the cardholder. In some implementations, the transaction information may include a merchant identifier, one or more merchant category codes (MCCs), a transaction type (e.g., online, in-person, swipe, chip, tap, etc.), a transaction location, a transaction description, an identifier of goods or services, and/or other information regarding the transaction. The authorization request may include some or all of the transaction information. In some implementations, the authorization request includes only the information required by the authorization engine to authorize or deny the transaction. In an example, the authorization request may include a transaction amount so the authorization engine can determine whether the account associated with the cardholder has sufficient available funds or sufficient available credit for the transaction.” (See Applicant Spec para 52)
“The authorization engine may compare 520 the transaction information to an available balance. Comparing the transaction information may include comparing a transaction amount of the transaction information to the available balance. The available balance may be received from a line of credit engine. The available balance may be a real-time available balance that accurately reflects the real-time available balance calculated at the line of credit engine. The line of credit engine may calculate the real-time available balance, applying all fees, interest, pending charges, payments, and other inputs that affect the available balance and transmit the real-time available balance to the authorization engine. The authorization engine may compare the transaction information to the real-time available balance to accurately determine whether the account has sufficient available funds and/or available credit to complete the transaction. In this way, the authorization engine can, without calculating the available balance, use the real-time available balance provided by the line of credit engine to determine whether to approve or deny the transaction. In some implementations, the line of credit engine may push the real-time available balance to the authorization engine. In an example, each time a calculation is applied to the real-time available balance, or each time the real-time available balance is updated, the line of credit engine pushes the real-time available balance, or updated real-time available balance to the authorization engine.” (See Applicant Spec para 53)
“FIG. 7 illustrates an example computer system 700. The computer system 700 may be used, for example, to implement a issuing processor aggregator 134, line of credit engine 110, issuing processors 104, card networks 107, and/or various other example systems described in the present disclosure. The computing system 700 includes a bus 705 or other communication component for communicating information and a processor 710 coupled to the bus 705 for processing information. The computing system 700 also includes main memory 715, such as a random-access memory (RAM) or dynamic storage device, coupled to the bus 705 for storing information, and instructions to be executed by the processor 710. Main memory 715 can also be used for storing position information, temporary variables, or other intermediate information during execution of instructions by the processor 710. The computing system 700 may further include a read only memory (ROM) 720 or other static storage device coupled to the bus 705 for storing static information and instructions for the processor 710. A storage device 725, such as a solid-state device, magnetic disk, or optical disk, is coupled to the bus 705 for persistently storing information and instructions.” (See Applicant Spec para 72)
“In some implementations, the computing system 700 may include a communications adapter 740, such as a networking adapter. In various illustrative implementations, any type of networking configuration may be achieved using communications adapter 740, such as wired (e.g., via Ethernet), wireless (e.g., via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth), satellite (e.g., via GPS) pre-configured, ad-hoc, LAN, WAN.” (See Applicant Spec para 74)
“According to various implementations, the processes that effectuate illustrative implementations that are described herein may be achieved by the computing system 700 in response to the processor 710 executing an implementation of instructions contained in main memory 715. Such instructions may be read into main memory 715 from another computer-readable medium, such as the storage device 725. Execution of the implementation of instructions contained in main memory 715 causes the computing system 700 to perform the illustrative processes described herein. One or more processors in a multi-processing implementation may also be operated to execute the instructions contained in main memory 715. In alternative implementations, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement illustrative implementations. Thus, implementations are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software.” (See Applicant Spec para 75)
“That is, although an example processing system has been described in FIG. 7, implementations of the subject matter and the functional operations described in this specification may be carried out using other types of digital electronic circuitry, or in computer software embodied on a tangible medium, firmware, or hardware, including the structures disclosed in this specification and their structural equivalents, or in combinations of one or more of them. Implementations of the subject matter described in this specification may be implemented as one or more computer programs, e.g., one or more subsystems of computer program instructions, encoded on one or more computer storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. Alternatively, or in addition, the program instructions may be encoded on an artificially generated propagated signal, e.g., a machine generated electrical, optical, or electromagnetic signal, that is generated to encode information for transmission to suitable receiver apparatus for execution by a data processing apparatus. A computer storage medium may be, or be included in, a computer-readable storage device, a computer-readable storage substrate, a random or serial access memory array or device, or a combination of one or more of them. Moreover, while a computer storage medium is not a propagated signal, a computer storage medium may be a source or destination of computer program instructions encoded in an artificially generated propagated signal. The computer storage medium can also be, or be included in, one or more separate components or media (e.g., multiple CDs, disks, or other storage devices). Accordingly, the computer storage medium is both tangible and non-transitory.” (See Applicant Spec para 76)
“Although shown in the implementations of FIG. 7 as singular, stand-alone devices, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that, in some implementations, the computing system 700 may include virtualized systems and/or system resources. For example, in some implementations, the computing system 700 may be a virtual switch, virtual router, virtual host, or virtual server. In various implementations, computing system 700 may share physical storage, hardware, and other resources with other virtual machines. In some implementations, virtual resources of the network may include cloud computing resources such that a virtual resource may rely on distributed processing across more than one physical processor, distributed memory, etc.” (See Applicant Spec para 77)
“As used herein, the term “circuit” may include hardware structured to execute the functions described herein. In some embodiments, each respective “circuit” may include machine-readable media for configuring the hardware to execute the functions described herein. The circuit may be embodied as one or more circuitry components, including, but not limited to, processing circuitry, network interfaces, peripheral devices, input devices, output devices, and sensors. In some embodiments, a circuit may take the form of one or more analog circuits, electronic circuits (e.g., integrated circuits (IC), discrete circuits, system on a chip (SOC) circuits), telecommunication circuits, hybrid circuits, and any other type of “circuit.” In this regard, the “circuit” may include any type of component for accomplishing or facilitating achievement of the operations described herein. For example, a circuit as described herein may include one or more transistors, logic gates (e.g., NAND, AND, NOR, OR, XOR, NOT, XNOR), resistors, multiplexers, registers, capacitors, inductors, diodes, wiring.” (See Applicant Spec para 94)
“The “circuit” may also include one or more processors communicatively coupled to one or more memory or memory devices. In this regard, the one or more processors may execute instructions stored in the memory or may execute instructions otherwise accessible to the one or more processors. In some embodiments, the one or more processors may be embodied in various ways. The one or more processors may be constructed in a manner sufficient to perform at least the operations described herein. In some embodiments, the one or more processors may be shared by multiple circuits (e.g., circuit A and circuit B may comprise or otherwise share the same processor which, in some example embodiments, may execute instructions stored, or otherwise accessed, via different areas of memory). Alternatively, or additionally, the one or more processors may be structured to perform or otherwise execute certain operations independent of one or more co-processors. In other example embodiments, two or more processors may be coupled via a bus to enable independent, parallel, pipelined, or multi-threaded instruction execution. Each processor may be implemented as one or more general-purpose processors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), digital signal processors (DSPs), or other suitable electronic data processing components structured to execute instructions provided by memory. The one or more processors may take the form of a single core processor, multi-core processor (e.g., dual core processor, triple core processor, quad core processor), microprocessor. In some embodiments, the one or more processors may be external to the apparatus, for example the one or more processors may be a remote processor (e.g., a cloud based processor). Alternatively, or additionally, the one or more processors may be internal and/or local to the apparatus. In this regard, a given circuit or components thereof may be disposed locally (e.g., as part of a local server, a local computing system) or remotely (e.g., as part of a remote server such as a cloud based server). To that end, a “circuit” as described herein may include components that are distributed across one or more locations.” (See Applicant Spec para 95)
“An exemplary system for implementing the overall system or portions of the embodiments might include a general purpose computing devices in the form of computers, including a processing unit, a system memory, and a system bus that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit. Each memory device may include non-transient volatile storage media, non-volatile storage media, non-transitory storage media (e.g., one or more volatile and/or non-volatile memories), etc. In some embodiments, the non-volatile media may take the form of ROM, flash memory (e.g., flash memory such as NAND, 3D NAND, NOR, 3D NOR), EEPROM, MRAM, magnetic storage, hard discs, optical discs, etc. In other embodiments, the volatile storage media may take the form of RAM, TRAM, ZRAM, etc. Combinations of the above are also included within the scope of machine-readable media. In this regard, machine-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing machines to perform a certain function or group of functions. Each respective memory device may be operable to maintain or otherwise store information relating to the operations performed by one or more associated circuits, including processor instructions and related data (e.g., database components, object code components, script components), in accordance with the example embodiments described herein.” (See Applicant Spec para 96)
Considering the claim elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when considered individually. The additional elements are directed to computers and other systemization being used to perform processing transaction authorization requests including transaction information and updating an available balance.
The functions performed by the computer of each step of the process are purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, processing, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval. The computer functions of receiving data are generic, routine and conventional computer activities. The claims are not describing any activities in an unconventional manner. Each step requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon (the received transaction authorization request including transaction information, comparing the transaction information to an available balance, based on the comparison transmitting an approval message, transmitting the transaction information and determining an updated balance based on the transaction information), the process of collecting and analyzing information limited to a particular content or source does not make the collection or analysis less abstract.
Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. the claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea presented in Independent claims 1 and 11 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activities and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Dependent Claims 2 and 12 provide further details on the comparison of the transaction information to the available balance. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claims 3-4 provide further details on the determination of the updated available balance. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claims 5 and 15 provides further details on transmitting the transaction information to a data enrichment engine and receiving enriched transaction information and detailing that transmitting the transaction information to the line of credit engine includes transmitting the enriched transaction information to the line of credit engine. The additional element of a data enrichment engine is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The data enrichment engine as disclosed by the specification may be implemented by software and/or hardware. (See Applicant Spec paras 28, 32, 40, 70) This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claims 6 and 16 provide further details that the first available balance is associated with a first user and the second available balance is associated with a second user. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 provide further details on how the line of credit engine transmits and receives information from the authorization engine using a single communication channel. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 provide further details that the authorization engine includes a first subset of available balances each associated with an available credit amount and a second subset of available balances each associated with an available funds amount. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claim 9 provides further details that the instructions further cause the authorization engine to receive a plurality of transaction authorization requests from a plurality of issuing processors. The claims do not recite any additional types of elements than those found in the respective independent claims, rather they recite additional issuing processors. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claim 10 provides further details that the instructions further cause the authorization engine to receive updated available balances from a plurality of line of credit engines. The claims do not recite any additional types of elements than those found in the respective independent claims, rather they recite additional line of credit engines. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claim 19 provides details further comprising receiving a plurality of transaction authorization requests from a plurality of issuing processors. The claims do not recite any additional types of elements than those found in the respective independent claims, rather they recite additional issuing processors. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claim 20 provide details further comprising receiving updated available balances from a plurality of line of credit engines. The claims do not recite any additional types of elements than those found in the respective independent claims, rather they recite additional line of credit engines. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is concluded that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlers et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0110706) (“Ahlers”)
Regarding Claim 1, Ahlers discloses the following:
A system comprising:
a line of credit system comprising: (See Ahlers Fig. 3 – line of credit loan processor, paras 46, 54-55)
one or more first processors; and (See Ahlers paras 15-16, 54)
one or more first non-transitory, computer-readable mediums including instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the line of credit system to: (See Ahlers paras 15-16, 54-55, Fig. 3)
determine, by the line of credit engine, a first available balance for a first account of a first account type based on ledger data structure, pending transactions, fees, and interest of the first account representing a real-time amount of available funds of the first account and a second available balance for a second account of a second account type, representing a real-time amount of available funds of the second account; (See Ahlers paras 10-12, 14-19, 38-40, 44, 47-49, Fig. 11 – accessing a line of credit associated with a checking account, includes making available draws to the line of credit line in an authorization stream for a proposed payment [pending transaction]. The line of credit has a total loan value, a preselected loan increment, preselected loan advance fee associated with each preselected loan increment and a line of credit balance available [ledger data structure of the line of credit]; once prequalified, a consumer can present a debit or payment card for payment in transactions with a merchant who in turn requests authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card. Within the authorization stream for the transaction, lending institution through a computer program product can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit. The lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment.)
push, by the line of credit engine, over a communication network, the first available balance as a first single number and the second available balance as a second single number to an authorization engine; and (See Ahlers paras 10-11, 13-17, 19, 38-39, 47-49, Fig. 11 – an example illustrates a consumer proposing to purchase items with a value of $42 but only has an account balance of $21 [in the checking account], however the consumer also has $60 available on the line of credit. When consumer proposes the purchase and the difference between the value of the purchase and the account is available, the difference is credited to the checking account so that the account has a new amount and exceeds or equals the value of the proposed purchase and the transaction is conducted and the account balance after the purchase is determined, including loan fees [shown as single numbers])
an authorization system comprising: (See Ahlers paras 46-47, 54-56, 62, Figs. 3, 5A-B, 8, 9A-C)
one or more second processors; and (See Ahlers paras 46-47, 54-56, 62)
one or more second non-transitory, computer-readable mediums including instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the authorization system to: (See Ahlers paras 46-47, 54-56, 62)
store, by an available credit service of the authorization engine, the first available balance and the second available balance; (See Ahlers paras 10-11, 19, 39, 47-48, 64 – the method further includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available where the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees, as each of the one or more preselected loan increments credited to the checking account generated a preselected loan advance fee; loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit)
receive, at the authorization engine, over a payment network, from an issuing processor, a transaction authorization request including transaction information; (See Ahlers paras 38-41, 45, 47-50, 54– consumer can present a debit or payment card for payment in transaction with a merchant, merchant can request authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card [issuing processor]; in the present invention, the amount of the loan is determined, up to the total loan value, in the authorization stream for a proposed purchase, e.g., using the debit card as payment, resulting in fewer rejections of proposed purchases)
compare, by the authorization engine, the transaction information to the stored first available balance of the first account; (See Ahlers paras 38-40, 47-48, 54 – the authorization request is received and if access to the line of credit is needed to complete the purchase or transaction [implies a comparison has been made], requests credit from the lending institution)
based on the comparison, transmit, by the authorization engine, over the payment network, to the issuing processor, an approval message; and (See Ahlers paras 38-41, 47-50, 54-56 – lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment; lending institution pushes line of credit information to the checking account institution [issuing processor] as part of line of credit messaging allowing the checking account institution to make the decision to extend credit for a particular transaction responsive to the information from the lending institution so the checking account institution can grant authorization in real time)
transmit, by the authorization engine, over the communication network, the transaction information to a line of credit engine; (See Ahlers paras 39-41, 44, 47-48, 54 – within the authorization stream for the transaction, through a computer program product including a loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit; in embodiments of a gateway model between the lending institution and the checking account institution, i.e., the checking account institution notifies the lending institution [line of credit engine] for a particular request for credit as part of the line of credit messaging, allowing the lending institution to make the decision for the particular request so that the checking account institution can grant authorization of a request; proposed payment data can be, for example, received by the lending institution computer through the electronic communication network from a point of sale terminal)
wherein the line of credit engine is configured to:
determine a first updated available balance for the first account based on the transaction information representing a real-time updated amount of available funds of the first account; and (See Ahlers paras 10, 16, 38-40, 44-49, 56, 64, Fig. 11, Cl. 25-26 – crediting the checking account with an additional value equal to one or more preselected loan increments so that the account then has a new amount totaling a previous amount of value in the account plus the amount of value of the one or more preselected loan increments and so that the new amount exceeds or, alternatively, equals the value of the proposed transaction [transaction information] to thereby convert line of credit data into a value associated with the checking account to thereby fund the proposed payment; after the purchase is transacted, the account balance of the checking account is $19, the loan fee is determined to the $5 and the line of credit balance outstanding is $45 and there remains $15 on the line of credit [real time updated amount of available funds])
push, by the line of credit engine, over the communication network, the first updated available balance as a third single number to the authorization engine; (See Ahlers paras 10, 16-17, 19, 38-40, 43, 45, 48-49, 56 –includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available – the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees)
wherein the authorization engine is configured to store, by the available credit service, the first updated available balance. (See Ahlers paras 43, 45, 48-49, 54-56; 62, 64, Cl. 25-26)
Ahlers discloses an authorization stream that is disclosed as a computer implemented method that can include making available draws to the line of credit line in an authorization stream for a proposed payment, including proposed payments using a debit card or other checking account spending device and including proposed payments received by the lending institution computer through the electronic communications network from a point of sale terminal associated with a merchant. (See Ahlers para 10) The line of credit has a total loan value, a preselected loan increment, a preselected loan advance fee associated with each preselected loan increment, and a line of credit balance available. (See Ahlers para 10) The total loan value represents a maximum amount of value available to the consumer from the lending institution via a line of credit associated with the checking account as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 10)
The computer-implemented method also includes crediting the checking account with an additional value equal to one or more preselected loan increments so that the account then has a new amount totaling a previous amount of value in the account plus the amount of value of the one or more preselected loan increments and so that the new amount exceeds or, alternatively, equals the value of the proposed transaction to thereby convert line of credit data into a value associated with the checking account to thereby fund the proposed payment. (See Ahlers para 10) The computer-implemented method further includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available where the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees, as each of the one or more preselected loan increments credited to the checking account generates a pre-selected loan advance fee. (See Ahlers para 10)
Ahlers discloses that once prequalified, for example, a consumer can then present, for example, a debit or payment card for payment in transaction with a merchant and the merchant, for example, can request authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card. (See Ahlers para 47) Within the authorization stream for the transaction, the lending institution through a computer program product described herein, including a loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit. (See Ahlers para 47) The lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment. (See Ahlers para 47) The merchant exchanges products, including goods and/or services, for payment. (See Ahlers para 47)
Ahlers provides various embodiments that can include a variety of financial institutions interacting with variations on the line of credit messaging between the checking account institution and the lending institution as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 48) The variations, as noted in paragraphs 48-50 and Figs 5B, 9A-C disclose authorizing payment requests and extensions of the line of credit as needed. (See Ahlers paras 47-50)
Further, Ahlers discloses that embodiments can be a program product associated with a bank or other financial or lending institution implemented in modules or components as well as other architectures. (See Ahlers para 62 and Fig. 8)
While Ahlers discloses the invention as disclosed above except for the recitation of an authorization system per se, the noted disclosure of the authorization stream as disclosed demonstrates an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an authorization system for an authorization stream. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahlers by integrating two component claim elements contained in the authorization system, the payment network and the communication network within the authorization stream as one integrated claim element where each component claim element continues to serve the same function. In the integration, each component claim element would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the integration were predictable. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in Claim 1 and/or is otherwise taught by the disclosure above and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 11 and as to those claims are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein comparing, by the authorization engine, the transaction information to the available balance includes comparing a transaction amount to the available balance. (See Ahlers paras 38-40)
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further,
wherein determining, by the line of credit engine, the updated available balance includes updating a balance category of the available balance. (See Ahlers paras 10, 12, 16, 19, 38-40, 50, 56, 64 and Fig. 11)
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 3 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further,
wherein determining, by the line of credit engine, the updated available balance includes determining, based on the transaction information, a transaction category corresponding to the balance category. (See Ahlers paras 10, 16, 38-40, 44, 56, 64 and Fig. 11)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein the instructions further cause the authorization system to: (See Ahlers paras 10, 15-17, 38-40, 44-47, 54-56, 62-64, Figs. 3, 5A-B, 8, 9A-C)
transmit, by the authorization engine, the transaction information to a data enrichment engine, and (See Ahlers paras 41, 44, 47-48, 54, 62-64)
receive, by the authorization engine, from the data enrichment engine, enriched transaction information, wherein transmitting the transaction information to the line of credit engine includes transmitting the enriched transaction information to the line of credit engine. (See Ahlers paras 41, 44, 47-48, 54, 62-64)
Ahlers discloses an authorization stream that is disclosed as a computer implemented method that can include making available draws to the line of credit line in an authorization stream for a proposed payment, including proposed payments using a debit card or other checking account spending device and including proposed payments received by the lending institution computer through the electronic communications network from a point of sale terminal associated with a merchant. (See Ahlers para 10) The line of credit has a total loan value, a preselected loan increment, a preselected loan advance fee associated with each preselected loan increment, and a line of credit balance available. (See Ahlers para 10) The total loan value represents a maximum amount of value available to the consumer from the lending institution via a line of credit associated with the checking account as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 10)
The computer-implemented method also includes crediting the checking account with an additional value equal to one or more preselected loan increments so that the account then has a new amount totaling a previous amount of value in the account plus the amount of value of the one or more preselected loan increments and so that the new amount exceeds or, alternatively, equals the value of the proposed transaction to thereby convert line of credit data into a value associated with the checking account to thereby fund the proposed payment. (See Ahlers para 10) The computer-implemented method further includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available where the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees, as each of the one or more preselected loan increments credited to the checking account generates a pre-selected loan advance fee. (See Ahlers para 10)
Ahlers discloses that once prequalified, for example, a consumer can then present, for example, a debit or payment card for payment in transaction with a merchant and the merchant, for example, can request authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card. (See Ahlers para 47) Within the authorization stream for the transaction, the lending institution through a computer program product described herein, including a loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit. (See Ahlers para 47) The lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment. (See Ahlers para 47) The merchant exchanges products, including goods and/or services, for payment. (See Ahlers para 47)
Ahlers provides various embodiments that can include a variety of financial institutions interacting with variations on the line of credit messaging between the checking account institution and the lending institution as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 48) The variations, as noted in paragraphs 48-50 and Figs 5B, 9A-C disclose authorizing payment requests and extensions of the line of credit as needed. (See Ahlers paras 47-50)
Further, Ahlers discloses that embodiments can be a program product associated with a bank or other financial or lending institution implemented in modules or components as well as other architectures. (See Ahlers para 62 and Fig. 8)
While Ahlers discloses the invention as disclosed above except for the recitation of an authorization system per se, the noted disclosure of the authorization stream as disclosed demonstrates an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an authorization system for an authorization stream. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahlers by integrating two component claim elements contained in the authorization system, the payment network and the communication network within the authorization stream as one integrated claim element where each component claim element continues to serve the same function. In the integration, each component claim element would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the integration were predictable. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 11 and as to those claims are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein first available balance is associated with a first user and the second available balance associated with a second user. (See Ahlers paras 44, 46, 54-55, and Cl. 21 – multiple consumer profiles stored in the database so when a consumer desires to access a line of credit as described herein, the process acknowledges the identifier, plurality of line credit accounts associated with a plurality of checking accounts)
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 6 and 11 and as to those claims are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein the line of credit engine transmits and receives information from the authorization engine using a single communication channel. (See Ahlers paras 41, 44, 47-48, 54 and 63)
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 11 and as to those claims are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein the authorization engine includes a first subset of available balances each associated with an available credit amount and a second subset of available balances each associated with an available funds amount. (See Ahlers paras 38-40, 44-49)
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein the instructions further cause the authorization system, by the authorization engine to receive a plurality of transaction authorization requests from a plurality of issuing processors. (See Ahlers paras 15-17, 38-40, 44-48, 54-56, 62-64, Figs. 3, 5A-B, 8, 9A-C and Cl. 21)
Ahlers discloses an authorization stream that is disclosed as a computer implemented method that can include making available draws to the line of credit line in an authorization stream for a proposed payment, including proposed payments using a debit card or other checking account spending device and including proposed payments received by the lending institution computer through the electronic communications network from a point of sale terminal associated with a merchant. (See Ahlers para 10) The line of credit has a total loan value, a preselected loan increment, a preselected loan advance fee associated with each preselected loan increment, and a line of credit balance available. (See Ahlers para 10) The total loan value represents a maximum amount of value available to the consumer from the lending institution via a line of credit associated with the checking account as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 10)
The computer-implemented method also includes crediting the checking account with an additional value equal to one or more preselected loan increments so that the account then has a new amount totaling a previous amount of value in the account plus the amount of value of the one or more preselected loan increments and so that the new amount exceeds or, alternatively, equals the value of the proposed transaction to thereby convert line of credit data into a value associated with the checking account to thereby fund the proposed payment. (See Ahlers para 10) The computer-implemented method further includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available where the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees, as each of the one or more preselected loan increments credited to the checking account generates a pre-selected loan advance fee. (See Ahlers para 10)
Ahlers discloses that once prequalified, for example, a consumer can then present, for example, a debit or payment card for payment in transaction with a merchant and the merchant, for example, can request authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card. (See Ahlers para 47) Within the authorization stream for the transaction, the lending institution through a computer program product described herein, including a loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit. (See Ahlers para 47) The lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment. (See Ahlers para 47) The merchant exchanges products, including goods and/or services, for payment. (See Ahlers para 47)
Ahlers provides various embodiments that can include a variety of financial institutions interacting with variations on the line of credit messaging between the checking account institution and the lending institution as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 48) The variations, as noted in paragraphs 48-50 and Figs 5B, 9A-C disclose authorizing payment requests and extensions of the line of credit as needed. (See Ahlers paras 47-50)
Further, Ahlers discloses that embodiments can be a program product associated with a bank or other financial or lending institution implemented in modules or components as well as other architectures. (See Ahlers para 62 and Fig. 8)
While Ahlers discloses the invention as disclosed above except for the recitation of an authorization system per se, the noted disclosure of the authorization stream as disclosed demonstrates an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an authorization system for an authorization stream. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahlers by integrating two component claim elements contained in the authorization system, the payment network and the communication network within the authorization stream as one integrated claim element where each component claim element continues to serve the same function. In the integration, each component claim element would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the integration were predictable. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein the instructions further cause the authorization system, by the authorization engine to receive updated available balances from a plurality of line of credit engines. (See Ahlers paras 10, 15-17, 38-40, 44-47, 54-56, 62-64, Figs. 3, 5A-B, 8, 9A-C and Cl. 21)
Ahlers discloses an authorization stream that is disclosed as a computer implemented method that can include making available draws to the line of credit line in an authorization stream for a proposed payment, including proposed payments using a debit card or other checking account spending device and including proposed payments received by the lending institution computer through the electronic communications network from a point of sale terminal associated with a merchant. (See Ahlers para 10) The line of credit has a total loan value, a preselected loan increment, a preselected loan advance fee associated with each preselected loan increment, and a line of credit balance available. (See Ahlers para 10) The total loan value represents a maximum amount of value available to the consumer from the lending institution via a line of credit associated with the checking account as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 10)
The computer-implemented method also includes crediting the checking account with an additional value equal to one or more preselected loan increments so that the account then has a new amount totaling a previous amount of value in the account plus the amount of value of the one or more preselected loan increments and so that the new amount exceeds or, alternatively, equals the value of the proposed transaction to thereby convert line of credit data into a value associated with the checking account to thereby fund the proposed payment. (See Ahlers para 10) The computer-implemented method further includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available where the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees, as each of the one or more preselected loan increments credited to the checking account generates a pre-selected loan advance fee. (See Ahlers para 10)
Ahlers discloses that once prequalified, for example, a consumer can then present, for example, a debit or payment card for payment in transaction with a merchant and the merchant, for example, can request authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card. (See Ahlers para 47) Within the authorization stream for the transaction, the lending institution through a computer program product described herein, including a loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit. (See Ahlers para 47) The lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment. (See Ahlers para 47) The merchant exchanges products, including goods and/or services, for payment. (See Ahlers para 47)
Ahlers provides various embodiments that can include a variety of financial institutions interacting with variations on the line of credit messaging between the checking account institution and the lending institution as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 48) The variations, as noted in paragraphs 48-50 and Figs 5B, 9A-C disclose authorizing payment requests and extensions of the line of credit as needed. (See Ahlers paras 47-50)
Further, Ahlers discloses that embodiments can be a program product associated with a bank or other financial or lending institution implemented in modules or components as well as other architectures. (See Ahlers para 62 and Fig. 8)
While Ahlers discloses the invention as disclosed above except for the recitation of an authorization system per se, the noted disclosure of the authorization stream as disclosed demonstrates an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an authorization system for an authorization stream. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahlers by integrating two component claim elements contained in the authorization system, the payment network and the communication network within the authorization stream as one integrated claim element where each component claim element continues to serve the same function. In the integration, each component claim element would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the integration were predictable. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein comparing, by the authorization engine, the transaction information to the available balance includes comparing a transaction amount to a balance category of the available balance. (See Ahlers paras 10, 12, 16, 19, 38-40, 47-50, 56, 64 and Fig. 11)
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 3 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
wherein comparing, by the authorization engine, the transaction amount to a balance category of the available balance includes determining, based on the transaction information, a transaction category corresponding to the balance category. (See Ahlers paras 10, 16, 38-40, 44, 47-49, 56, 64 and Fig. 11)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
further comprising transmitting, by the authorization engine of the authorization system, the transaction information to a data enrichment engine, and (See Ahlers paras 41, 44, 46-48, 54-56, 62-64, Figs. 3, 5A-B, 8, 9A-C)
receive, by the authorization engine, from the data enrichment engine, enriched transaction information, wherein transmitting the transaction information to the line of credit engine includes transmitting the enriched transaction information to the line of credit engine of the line of credit system. (See Ahlers paras 41, 44, 47-48, 54, 62-64)
Ahlers discloses an authorization stream that is disclosed as a computer implemented method that can include making available draws to the line of credit line in an authorization stream for a proposed payment, including proposed payments using a debit card or other checking account spending device and including proposed payments received by the lending institution computer through the electronic communications network from a point of sale terminal associated with a merchant. (See Ahlers para 10) The line of credit has a total loan value, a preselected loan increment, a preselected loan advance fee associated with each preselected loan increment, and a line of credit balance available. (See Ahlers para 10) The total loan value represents a maximum amount of value available to the consumer from the lending institution via a line of credit associated with the checking account as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 10)
The computer-implemented method also includes crediting the checking account with an additional value equal to one or more preselected loan increments so that the account then has a new amount totaling a previous amount of value in the account plus the amount of value of the one or more preselected loan increments and so that the new amount exceeds or, alternatively, equals the value of the proposed transaction to thereby convert line of credit data into a value associated with the checking account to thereby fund the proposed payment. (See Ahlers para 10) The computer-implemented method further includes determining a new value for the line of credit balance available where the new value is a previous value for the line of credit balance available minus the value credited to the checking account and minus fees, as each of the one or more preselected loan increments credited to the checking account generates a pre-selected loan advance fee. (See Ahlers para 10)
Ahlers discloses that once prequalified, for example, a consumer can then present, for example, a debit or payment card for payment in transaction with a merchant and the merchant, for example, can request authorization from the lending institution associated with the debit or payment card. (See Ahlers para 47) Within the authorization stream for the transaction, the lending institution through a computer program product described herein, including a loan advance and fee manager can credit the consumer account in preselected loan increments from the line of credit. (See Ahlers para 47) The lending institution can then grant authorization for the payment. (See Ahlers para 47) The merchant exchanges products, including goods and/or services, for payment. (See Ahlers para 47)
Ahlers provides various embodiments that can include a variety of financial institutions interacting with variations on the line of credit messaging between the checking account institution and the lending institution as understood by those skilled in the art. (See Ahlers para 48) The variations, as noted in paragraphs 48-50 and Figs 5B, 9A-C disclose authorizing payment requests and extensions of the line of credit as needed. (See Ahlers paras 47-50)
Further, Ahlers discloses that embodiments can be a program product associated with a bank or other financial or lending institution implemented in modules or components as well as other architectures. (See Ahlers para 62 and Fig. 8)
While Ahlers discloses the invention as disclosed above except for the recitation of an authorization system per se, the noted disclosure of the authorization stream as disclosed demonstrates an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an authorization system for an authorization stream. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahlers by integrating two component claim elements contained in the authorization system, the payment network and the communication network within the authorization stream as one integrated claim element where each component claim element continues to serve the same function. In the integration, each component claim element would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the integration were predictable. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
further comprising receiving a plurality of transaction authorization requests from a plurality of issuing processors. (See Ahlers paras 15-17, 38-40, 45, 47-48 and Cl. 21)
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those claims is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Ahlers discloses the following:
further comprising receiving updated available balances from a plurality of line of credit engines. (See Ahlers paras 10, 15-17, 38-40, 44-49, 56 and Cl. 21)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered as detailed below.
Regarding the Examiner Interview Summary:
While Examiner and Applicant did have an interview and we did discuss differences between Ahlers and the present application as well as the possibility of adding additional system elements. There was no conclusive representation that the prior art would be overcome, rather Examiner noted that the art would have to be examined closely. (See Applicant Arguments dated 03/17/2026 page 8)
Regarding the 101 Rejection:
The 101 rejection has been revised based on the instant amendments as seen in the rejection in chief.
Applicant refers to the Ex Parte Desjardins memo and Examiner agrees that accordingly, data structures and/or architectures can provide a technical solution. (Id. at pages 9-10) However, the instant claims do not clearly provide the technical structure that would reflect the specific data structure architecture that may move towards subject matter patent eligibility, despite Applicant’s assertions to the contrary. (Id. at pages 10-11) The current claims do not appear to capture anything more than determining a first balance, push the first balance, receiving an authorization request and comparing data to determine approval. This does not appear to be a technical improvement as claimed, this is still comparing data. (Id. at pages 11-12) The newly added structure has been considered in the revised analysis, however is still recited at a high level.
The use of a real time available balance of a checking/debit account with reference to any type of overdraft protection (including a line of credit) is not an improvement to conventional systems, as debit accounts currently utilize real-time available balances as soon as a transaction is made. This is an argument related to the load being carried by a computer. If less data is transmitted, the load on any systemization will be reduced.
Applicant then refers to Enfish for the proposition that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology. (Id. at page 13) While this is correct, an improvement still needs to be shown. The claims do not appear to capture improvements to data storage and computer performance as argued for. (Id.) This argument is not persuasive. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 102 Rejection:
As amended, additional disclosure from Ahlers has been made to disclose the newly amended limitations and the rejection has been converted into a 103 rejection to account for the equivalency between an authorization system per se and the authorization stream and the disclosure of prequalified line of credit amounts being approved as disclosed by Ahlers as further disclosed in the rejection in chief. (Id. at pages 14-15)
The line of credit engine prequalifies consumers, however any purchasing is occurring utilizing a debit or payment card and as disclosed in the rejection in chief.
The disclosure of Ahlers teaches that there are both a debit or payment account and a line of credit account [two account types], further the disclosure, as recited above, also discloses that when a proposed purchase by consumer is $42 and the account [checking account has only $42 available as real-time amount of funds] but also has $60 available on the line of credit with an outstanding balance of $0 [second available balance for an account of a different type with a real-time amount of available funds]
Second, Applicant argues that the disclosure describes borrowing capacity that can be added to a checking account rather than a first available balance for a first account of a first account type based on pending transactions, fees and interest of the first account. (Id.) As seen above, the first available balance of the checking institution before any amount determined that could be borrowed is disclosed. While Applicant contends that this represents buying power and is different that real amount of available funds of the first account and real time amount of available funds. Examiner disagrees. The disclosure of Ahlers discloses the real-time amount of funds in the checking account and the second account type, as seen above in the rejection in chief.
Conclusion
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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights