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 communications filed on 01/30/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, and 20 has been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on January 30th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application, which would extend beyond the expiration date of US PAT. 11,797,958 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Examiner Note
Claim 1: lines 2-4 includes a statement of intended use. Specifically, the limitation: “retrieving, using at least one processor, a customer data associated with a user and inputting the customer data to a machine learning algorithm for determining a geographical footprint for the user.” The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
"adapted to" or "adapted for" or "to" or "for" clauses,
"wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
contingent limitations,
printed matter, or
terms with associated functional language.
The above list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). For more information about these types of claim language and how to determine whether they have a limiting effect on claim scope, see MPEP §§ 2111.02 through 2111.05.
Claim 1: lines 2-4 includes a statement of intended use, which have little to no patentable weight, however, for compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the claims as if they have little patentable weight. Please find and correct all occurrences.
Claim Objection
Claims 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, 8, 12, 18, and 20 recite the limitation “one or more transmission times for transmission of the alert” and “one or more updated transmission times for transmission of the alert.” “Transmission times for transmission of the alert” is awkwardly phrased. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claims 6, 8, 12, 18, and 20 as “one or more transmission times of the alert” and “one or more updated transmission times of the alert.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more updated tranmission times.” “Transmission” is misspelled. It appears there is a grammatical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instance recited in Claim 9 as “wherein the one or more updated transmission times.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present applicant, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite “in response to selecting the selectable icon, the response to the alert is transmitted to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction” where theses limitation recite “a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction,” which are not disclosed within the application’s specification and to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of transmitting the response to the alert to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction. Simply stating or re-stating the claim limitation does not provide enough support to show possession. Since these important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has full possession of the invention at the time of filing (i.e., the original disclosure fails to provide adequate written description to support the claimed invention as a whole). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose in detail the specific steps or algorithm needed to perform the operation. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claims 1 and 12.
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 of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; Claim 12 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; and Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which recites a series of steps, e.g., retrieving, using at least one processor, a customer data associated with a user and inputting the customer data to a machine learning algorithm for determining a geographical footprint for the user; generating, using the at least one processor, using the machine learning algorithm being executed on a customer data set, the geographical footprint associated with the user, the geographical footprint including one or more customers in the customer data set being geographically proximate to a geographical location of the user; identifying, using the at least one processor, at least one transaction associated with the user; determining, using the at least one processor, one or more transmission times of an alert associated with the at least one transaction to a mobile device associated with the user, the one or more transmission times are determined based on the geographical location of the user and one or more transactions associated with the one or more customers in the customer data set, the one or more transactions being similar to the at least one transaction, and transmitting the alert at the one or more transmission times; and triggering, using the at least one processor, in response to the transmission of the alert, an automatic execution of one or more software applications provided to the mobile device to display the alert on a graphical user interface of the mobile device at the one or more times, the graphical user interface embedding a selectable icon associated with a transmission of a response to the alert, wherein, in response to selecting the selectable icon, the response to the alert is transmitted to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating the risk of improperly meeting the threshold condition associated with determining when to send a bill payment alert to a customer, based upon a geographical footprint associated with the customer; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the management of bill payments by retrieving a customer’s bill payment activity data based on the customer’s defined geographical footprint, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 are directed to a method, which recites a series of steps that describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert. Furthermore, dependent claim 11 is directed to a method, which recites the step: “wherein the alert is transmitted to the mobile device using at least one of the following; an email, a text message, a website, a chatbot, a telephone, and any combination thereof.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating the risk of improperly meeting the threshold condition associated with determining when to send a bill payment alert to a customer, based upon a geographical footprint associated with the customer; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the management of bill payments by retrieving a customer’s bill payment activity data based on the customer’s defined geographical footprint, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-11 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, graphical user interface, chatbot, and telephone are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, graphical user interface, chatbot, and telephone, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 12 is directed to a system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory storage media storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to apply a machine learning algorithm to a customer data set to generate a geographical footprint associated with a user, the geographical footprint including one or more customers in the customer data set being geographically proximate to an initial geographical location of the user; select one or more threshold conditions based on one or more transactions executed by the one or more customers in the geographical footprint; determine one or more transmission times for an alert associated with the at least one transaction to a mobile device associated with the user, the one or more transmission times for transmission of the alert being determined based on at least one transaction meeting the one or more selected threshold conditions and based on the geographical location of the user and one or more transactions associated with the one or more customers in the customer data set, the one or more transactions being similar to the at least one transaction, wherein the alert is transmitted at the one or more transmission times; and trigger, in response to the transmission of the alert, automatic execution of one or more software applications provided to the mobile device to display the alert on a graphical user interface of the mobile device at the one or more transmission times, the graphical user interface embedding a selectable icon associated with a transmission of a response to the alert, wherein, in response to selecting the selectable icon, the response to the alert is transmitted to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating the risk of improperly meeting the threshold condition associated with determining when to send a bill payment alert to a customer, based upon a geographical footprint associated with the customer; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the management of bill payments by retrieving a customer’s bill payment activity data based on the customer’s defined geographical footprint, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface of the mobile device do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface of the mobile device are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 12 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface of the mobile device are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 13-19 are directed to a system, which performs the steps that describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert, which is mitigating the risk of improperly meeting the threshold condition associated with determining when to send a bill payment alert to a customer, based upon a geographical footprint associated with the customer; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the management of bill payments by retrieving a customer’s bill payment activity data based on the customer’s defined geographical footprint, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 13-19 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications on the mobile device, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface of the mobile device, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims: Claim 1 and 12; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, 2-11 and 13-19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to: generate, using the machine learning algorithm being executed on a customer data set, a geographical footprint associated with a user, the geographical footprint including one or more customers in the customer data set being geographically proximate to a geographical location of the user; determine one or more transmission times of an alert associated with the at least one transaction to a mobile device associated with the user, the one or more transmission times for transmission of the alert being determined based on at least one transaction associated with the user meeting one or more threshold conditions and based on the geographical location of the user and one or more transactions associated with the one or more customers in the customer data set, the one or more transactions being similar to the at least one transaction, wherein the alert is transmitted at the one or more transmission times, the one or more threshold conditions being determined based on the geographical footprint; and trigger, in response to the transmission of the alert, automatically executing of one or more software applications on the mobile device associated with the user to display the alert on a graphical user interface of the mobile device at the one or more transmission times, the graphical user interface embedding a selectable icon associated with a transmission of a response to the alert, wherein, in response to selecting the selectable icon, the response to the alert is transmitted to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating the risk of improperly meeting the threshold condition associated with determining when to send a bill payment alert to a customer, based upon a geographical footprint associated with the customer; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the management of bill payments by retrieving a customer’s bill payment activity data based on the customer’s defined geographical footprint, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable medium, at least one programmable processor, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium, at least one programmable processor, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 20 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium, at least one programmable processor, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objection of claim 1, the objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on 01/30/2026. However, with respect to the objection of claims 6, 8, 12, 18, and 20, the objection has not been withdrawn because the limitations: “one or more transmission times for transmission of the alert” and “one or more updated transmission times for transmission of the alert” have not been appropriately corrected. The typographical mistakes in the limitations have not been addressed and are still awkwardly phrased as “times for transmission of the alert”. Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-6, 10-17, and 19- 20, the rejection is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on January 30th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application, which would extend beyond the expiration date of US PAT. 11,797,958. Specifically, the terminal disclaimer filed on January 30th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application, which would extend beyond the expiration date of US PAT. 11,797,958 has been reviewed and is accepted.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “in view of the amendments to Claim 1 and the following remarks, the Applicant submits that the claims are patent-eligible under the current USPTO guidance because they are integrated into a practical application and provide significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. First, the claims as amended are integrated into a practical application that provides a technical solution to a technical problem (Step 2A, Prong 2)…. Claim 1 now specifically recites an "automatic execution" of software applications on a mobile device to display alerts at precisely determined "transmission times". This determination is not a simple business calculation but is driven by a machine learning algorithm that dynamically synchronizes device behavior with a "geographical footprint" derived from complex customer data sets. This process optimizes the timing of network communications and device resource usage, ensuring that alerts are delivered and acted upon within a specific "payment window" that is geographically relevant to the user. This provides a specific benefit for controlling the generation and transmission of alerts that cannot be performed through manual human activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, as previously discussed in the non-final rejection: dated 04/23/2025 and final rejection: dated 08/01/2025, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claims 1, 12, and 20, as amended, describe the abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert, which is mitigating the risk of improperly meeting the threshold condition associated with determining when to send a bill payment alert to a customer, based upon a geographical footprint associated with the customer; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the management of bill payments by retrieving a customer’s bill payment activity data based on the customer’s defined geographical footprint, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the system limitations, e.g., at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications on the mobile device, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface of the mobile device do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, as previously discussed in the non-final rejection: dated 04/23/2025 and final rejection: dated 08/01/2025, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “retrieving, using at least one processor, a customer data associated with a user and inputting the customer data to a machine learning algorithm for determining a geographical footprint for the user; generating, using the at least one processor, using the machine learning algorithm being executed on a customer data set, the geographical footprint associated with the user, the geographical footprint including one or more customers in the customer data set being geographically proximate to a geographical location of the user; identifying, using the at least one processor, at least one transaction associated with the user; determining, using the at least one processor, one or more transmission times of an alert associated with the at least one transaction to a mobile device associated with the user, the one or more transmission times are determined based on the geographical location of the user and one or more transactions associated with the one or more customers in the customer data set, the one or more transactions being similar to the at least one transaction, and transmitting the alert at the one or more transmission times; and triggering, using the at least one processor, in response to the transmission of the alert, an automatic execution of one or more software applications provided to the mobile device to display the alert on a graphical user interface of the mobile device at the one or more times, the graphical user interface embedding a selectable icon associated with a transmission of a response to the alert, wherein, in response to selecting the selectable icon, the response to the alert is transmitted to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction” are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claims from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claims from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. Whether the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant argues that “furthermore, the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer and mobile communication environment. The specific integration of the machine learning model to determine geographical footprints-and subsequently using that data to trigger automated software execution on a mobile device improves the efficiency of the device's alert management system. By embedding a selectable icon that, upon engagement, facilitates a transmission to a remote utility payment portal, the claim describes a specialized technological architecture for real-time transactional synchronization. This is far more than a "fundamental economic principle" of mitigating risk; it is a specific implementation that addresses the technical complexities of alert fatigue and data relevance in mobile computing.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, as previously discussed in the non-final rejection: dated 04/23/2025 and final rejection: dated 08/01/2025, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply retrieving, inputting, determining, generating, executing, identifying, transmitting, triggering, providing, displaying, and selecting data (i.e., customer data, user data, geographic data, location data, alert data, and etc.). As noted in the 2024 Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, the disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “retrieving, using at least one processor, a customer data associated with a user and inputting the customer data to a machine learning algorithm for determining a geographical footprint for the user; generating, using the at least one processor, using the machine learning algorithm being executed on a customer data set, the geographical footprint associated with the user, the geographical footprint including one or more customers in the customer data set being geographically proximate to a geographical location of the user; identifying, using the at least one processor, at least one transaction associated with the user; determining, using the at least one processor, one or more transmission times of an alert associated with the at least one transaction to a mobile device associated with the user, the one or more transmission times are determined based on the geographical location of the user and one or more transactions associated with the one or more customers in the customer data set, the one or more transactions being similar to the at least one transaction, and transmitting the alert at the one or more transmission times; and triggering, using the at least one processor, in response to the transmission of the alert, an automatic execution of one or more software applications provided to the mobile device to display the alert on a graphical user interface of the mobile device at the one or more times, the graphical user interface embedding a selectable icon associated with a transmission of a response to the alert, wherein, in response to selecting the selectable icon, the response to the alert is transmitted to a remote utility payment portal to facilitate real-time funds availability for the at least one transaction.” Similar to 2024 Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: Example 47 (claim 2- ineligible), the recited features in the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 20 do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer/processor to input, process, and output data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (customer, user, geographical, location, and alert data), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the an abstract idea of retrieving customer data associated with a user to determine a geographical footprint for the user, and transmitting and displaying an alert without. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Furthermore, as previously noted, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1, 12, and 20, as amended, recite steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Additionally, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface. Unlike Example 47 (claim 3 - eligible) of the 2024 Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, the additional elements of at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications on the mobile device, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface of the mobile device are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Similar to Example 47 (claim 2- ineligible) and unlike Example 47 (claim 3 - eligible) of the 2024 Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, amended claims 1, 12, and 20 recite at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong I, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of “at least one processor, at least one non-transitory storage media, machine learning algorithm, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface” in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Hence, Claims 1, 12, and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “even if this Court were to find that the claims recite an abstract idea, the elements provide "significantly more" than the judicial exception (Step 2B). The ordered combination of a machine learning-derived geographical footprint, the determination of precise transmission times based on similar proximate transactions, and the automated triggering of mobile software constitutes an "inventive concept". These limitations are not "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the art. The specific technical constraints added to Claim 1 ensure that the patent does not preempt the general field of bill management but rather protects a specific, technologically driven implementation for mobile device alert triggering.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface (Claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Furthermore, as explained above with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional elements: a machine learning algorithm, at least one processor, mobile device, one or more software applications, remote utility payment portal, and graphical user interface (Claim 1), are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Kresge (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0117988 A1) “Initiating cardswap based on analytic model indicating third party card reissuance”
Ivanoff (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0258630 A1) “Systems and methods of managing payments that enable linking accounts of multiple guarantors”
Weinflash (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0378182 A1) “Secure electronic billing with real-time funds availability”
D'Agostino (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0096322 A1) “System and Method for Processing an Interaction Request”
Ross (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0078781 A1) “Automatic Bill-Pay Setup”
Scipioni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0078076 A1) “Short codes for bill pay”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693