DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 10/31/2023 and 1/25/2024.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
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 §2013(I)(C). 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. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 4 recites a method comprising:
determining, based on the risk classification, an allowed digital direct deposit advance percent for the network transaction;
processing the network transaction by determining a digital direct deposit advance amount for the network transaction based on the allowed digital direct deposit advance percent and an average digital direct deposit amount corresponding to a user account associated with the network transaction; and
displaying, in a digital direct deposit advance interface on a client device, an approval notification for the network transaction comprising the digital direct deposit advance amount.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 5, 7 and 13 have similar issues.
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
receiving a request to initiate a … transaction comprising a … direct deposit advance request;
identifying one or more features associated with the … transaction;
generating, utilizing a … direct deposit predictor … model, a … direct deposit likelihood based on the one or more features of the network transaction; and
processing the … transaction based on the … direct deposit likelihood.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to predict the likelihood of a direct deposit and, potentially, issue an advance based upon the predicted direct deposit which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Examiner notes that predicting the likelihood of a direct deposit is mitigation of financial risk and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a network transaction (Claim(s) 1), a digital direct deposit (Claim(s) 1), a digital direct deposit predictor machine-learning model (Claim(s) 1), a *** (Claim(s) ***) and a *** (Claim(s) ***).
The claimed invention does 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. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). 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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 9 and 16. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an interface on a client device (Claim(s) 4, 5, 7 and 13).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palaniappan (US PG 2024/0144388) in view of Palaniappan (US Patent 9,202,250).
Regarding Claim 1, Palaniappan ‘388 discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating a network transaction comprising a digital direct deposit advance (disbursing advanced wages, wages to be disbursed via direct deposit). (see para. 3, 30 and 35-38);
identifying one or more features (payroll data) associated with the network transaction. (see para. 34-47 and 75-79);
generating, utilizing a digital direct deposit predictor machine-learning model, a digital direct deposit likelihood (probability of receiving paycheck) based on the one or more features of the network transaction. (see para. 75-79); and
processing the network transaction (restricting access to earnings) based on the digital direct deposit likelihood. (see para. 81-84).
Palaniappan ‘388 does not explicitly teach a method comprising receiving a request to initiate a network transaction comprising a digital direct deposit advance request.
Palaniappan ‘250 discloses a method comprising receiving a request to initiate a network transaction comprising a digital direct deposit advance request (worker requests early payment of a payable amount from an employer, wherein the amount is based upon a future direct deposit). (see col. 7, line 63 – col. 8, line 13; col. 8, lines 41-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Palaniappan ‘388 to incorporate a request, as disclosed by Palaniappan ‘250, thereby enabling a user to time the disbursement of the direct deposit advance to a time when needed by the user.
Regarding Claim 2, Palaniappan ‘388 discloses a method wherein identifying the one or more features associated with the network transaction comprises identifying one or more of a historical digital direct deposit feature, a user account feature, a check deposit feature (financial institution), an application activity feature, an account balance feature, a physical card feature, a peer-to-peer transaction feature, a customer service ticket feature, or a time elapsed feature. (see para. 82).
Regarding Claim 3, Palaniappan ‘388 discloses a method comprising:
identifying user account data (financial institution) associated with the network transaction. (see para. 81-84);
based on the digital direct deposit likelihood and the user account data, determining, utilizing a risk analysis assembler (risk module), a risk classification (high risk or low risk) for the network transaction. (see para. 81-84); and
processing the network transaction (restricting access to earnings) according to the risk classification. (81-84).
Regarding Claim 5, Palaniappan ‘388 discloses a method comprising:
identifying that the digital direct deposit likelihood indicates that a user account associated with the network transaction will receive a digital direct deposit within a future digital direct deposit timeframe (by an expected payment date or receipt date). (see para. 72-73);
based on identifying that the digital direct deposit likelihood indicates that a user account associated with the network transaction will receive a digital direct deposit within the future digital direct deposit timeframe, determining a digital direct deposit advance amount for the network transaction. (see para. 72-73); and
displaying, in a digital direct deposit advance interface on a client device, an approval notification for the network transaction comprising the digital direct deposit advance amount. (see para. 53).
Regarding Claim 6, Palaniappan ‘388 discloses a method comprising:
generating a training dataset by sampling digital direct deposit training features corresponding to training network transactions comprising digital direct deposit advance requests corresponding to user accounts that received a previous digital direct deposit. (see para. 76-77); and
training the digital direct deposit predictor machine-learning model utilizing the training dataset. (see para. 76-77).
Regarding Claim 7, Planiappan ‘388 discloses a method comprising:
determining, based on the digital direct deposit likelihood, an eligible digital direct deposit advance amount (predicted pattern amount) for the network transaction. (see para. 126 and 138)
determining that the eligible digital direct deposit advance amount (predicted pattern amount) for the network transaction exceeds a maximum digital direct deposit advance amount (threshold amount or threshold percentage). (see para. 52, 126 and 138);
based on determining that the eligible digital direct deposit advance amount (predicted pattern amount) for the network transaction exceeds a maximum digital direct deposit advance amount (threshold amount), approving the network transaction for the maximum digital direct deposit advance amount (threshold amount or threshold percentage). (see para. 52 and 126); and
displaying, in a digital direct deposit advance interface on a client device, an approval notification for the network transaction comprising the maximum digital direct deposit advance amount (threshold amount). (see para. 53)
Regarding Claim 8, Palaniappan ‘388. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the network transaction further comprises:
identifying that the digital direct deposit likelihood indicates that a user account associated with the network transaction will not receive a digital direct deposit within a future digital direct deposit timeframe (pay cycle or pay period, payday prediction or earning cycle). (see para. 29, 47-48 and 112); and
based on identifying that the digital direct deposit likelihood indicates that a user account associated with the network transaction will not receive a digital direct deposit within a future digital direct deposit timeframe, denying the request to initiate the network transaction (restrict future earnings). (see para. 73).
Regarding Claims 9-17 and 19-20, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palaniappan ‘388 in view of Palaniappan ‘250, as applied to Claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Wanage (US PG Pub. 2024/0378466).
Regarding Claim 4, Palaniappan ‘388 discloses a method comprising:
determining, based on the risk classification, an allowed digital direct deposit advance percent (percentage amount of total wages expected to be received) for the network transaction. (see para. 52);
processing the network transaction by determining a digital direct deposit advance amount for the network transaction based on the allowed digital direct deposit advance percent (percentage) and a digital direct deposit amount (predicted pattern amount of scheduled wages) corresponding to a user account associated with the network transaction. (see para. 3 and 52); and
displaying, in a digital direct deposit advance interface on a client device, an approval notification for the network transaction comprising the digital direct deposit advance amount. (see para. 53 and 92).
Palaniappan ‘388 does not explicitly teach a method wherein the digital direct deposit amount is an average digital direct deposit amount.
Wanage discloses a method comprising a machine-learning model processing transactions to determine an average digital direct deposit amount. (see para. 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Palaniappan ‘388 and Planiappan ‘250 by incorporating an average deposit amount, as disclosed by Wanage, as an average deposit amount would indicate a pattern amount of schedule wages, as disclosed by Palaniappan ‘388.
Regarding Claim 18, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
6. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 December 18, 2025