Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Application Status
This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE received 5/15/2026.
Claims 1, 15, 59, and 73 are amended.
Claims 1-2,6-10,14-15,17-18,59-60,72-73 and 81-82 are pending and examined.
This action is non-final.
Rejections
Claims 1-2,6-10,14-15,17-18,59-60,72-73 and 81-821 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 claim rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. See “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” section below.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, Examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims not being directed to a judicial exception under step 2A and the claims amounting to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under step 2B, primarily because the claims provide a “…specific technological solution…”2. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments drawn to assertions that the claims provide “…a specific technological solution for employment verification and controlled disbursement…”3 are not persuasive, as providing a technical solution (i.e., computers indistinguishable from that of a general-purpose computer, and generic decision engine with machine learning model) to an abstract business problem (e.g., disbursing funds in advance based upon employment verification) is not the same as providing a technological solution to a technological problem – see MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”. The details drawn to the decision engine / machine learning model and system themselves are not indicative of an improvement to the field of machine learning / decision engines; they are merely applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The examiner respectfully submits Applicant arguments drawn to technological improvements provide no underlying reasoning or rationale as to why the claims “…solve specific technical problems…” and are conclusory4, excepting possibly that it differs from “[t]raditional employment verification methods [which] rely on manual processes…”5 and the claims incorporating “…use of a trained machine learning model”, of which results in “… automatically directing a flow of funds between two or more financial accounts associated with the system”6, because “the system enables disbursement through the disbursement account when the employment status corresponds to the active status and restricts disbursement when the employment status corresponds to the inactive status”7. However, these supporting rationales offered by Applicant are not persuasive in establishing the claims are patent eligible for the following reasons:
Merely automating the abstract employment verification and funds disbursement process to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.”) (citation omitted); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commce’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming this collection of elements led to a more efficient way of controlling resource access, ‘our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.’’’) (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same).
The claims do not provide sufficient details indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem to computer technology or to the field of machine learning, as the “…using a first decision engine, wherein the first decision engine includes a machine learning model that receives … [data] …” limitations are claimed at a high degree of generality and merely used to process data drawn to the abstract idea, not inconsistent with conventional use of decision engines / machine learning, so as to achieve desired results rooted in the abstract idea recited (i.e., verifying employment status) – see MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(1), 2106.04(d)(1), & 2106.05(a). To further support stance, examiner notes the following:
Examiner notes that nearly every predictive supervised machine learning model uses (historical) training data and weights to predict an output. Accordingly, the limitations “using a first decision engine, wherein the first decision engine includes a machine learning model that receives … data…, wherein the machine learning model incorporates a respective weight for ...wherein each respective weight is determined using training data that includes historical … data…” are not indicative of any improvement to any technology or technical field (e.g., machine learning / decision support systems). In order to support the aforementioned stance, Examiner notes the following prior art:
US 20200293866 A1 (Guo), disclosing that machine learning generally learns from past examples during a training process, which typically involves learning (e.g., adjusting) weights based on a dataset (e.g., historical data)(¶2).
US 20220414466 A1 (Ding), disclosing that the general purpose of machine learning algorithms is to train them in order to learn how to make decisions without explicit inputs from users (¶5).
US 20200194008 A1 (Lee), disclosing AI systems generally make decisions by itself (e.g., without hard-coded rules, see ¶4).
Keeping in mind the aforementioned rationales identified in item (ii) above, examiner notes the specifics of the abstract idea recited cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application alone; integration of a judicial exception into a practical application must be supplied by aspects of the additional elements. See §2106.05 of MPEP: “For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B”. As previously explained, Examiner respectfully maintains the additional elements “A system…”, “…the system comprising one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform…”, “…using a first decision engine, wherein the first decision engine includes a machine learning model that receives … [data]…” “…training...”, “…automatically…”, “…wherein the system is configured to…”, “wherein any one of the one or more processors is configured to…”, and “system” of claims 1 and 59 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. The 05/15/2026 amendment’s inclusion of additional element “…wherein the system…” does not meaningfully alter the analysis, as it is still indicative of the additional elements being merely applied, both individually and as an ordered combination.
Applicant’s arguments drawn to Example 35 are not drawn to any particular technological details that could be reasonably construed as indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem, to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the argument drawn to example 35 does not at all explain any comparisons drawn between the additional elements of the instant claims and those of example 35. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully fails to find applicant’s arguments drawn to example 35 persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments drawn to Example 35 are not persuasive for at least the following additional reasons:
With respect to USPTO Examples, the Examiner analyzes the claims under the two-part framework under the Alice/Mayo test. Examiner notes the Examples (Including Example 45) are not precedential, and the Examples provided in Office Guidance are hypothetical and intended to be illustrative only. While some of the fact patterns in the examples draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions.
The supporting argument “…[claimed] element (c) includes using a decision engine including a machine learning model to verify employment status and element (d) controlling the flow of funds in response to the verified employment status …”8 only further support’s examiner’s stance that the machine learning model is merely applied, as the only additional elements within the above argument are “…using a decision engine including a machine learning model to …”, where the subsequent functionality is mere performance of an aspect of the abstract idea recited at a high degree of generality; i.e., “…controlling the flow of funds in response to the verified employment status…”. This amounts to “apply it” (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f)(1), (f)(2)). Additionally, while examiner notes the system’s performance of the enabling / restricting functionality is based on the employment status determined by the decision engine / machine learning model, the machine learning model does not itself “control…the flow of funds in response to the verified employment status…”; the system is still understood to perform that step.
Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 were not found patent eligible because “… it integrated identity verification technology into a practical application that solved a specific technical problem in automated banking …”9 – the non-precedential exemplary analysis found that both of the eligible examples (claims 2 and 3) were not patent eligible at step 2A Prong II. Example 35 verbatim states, “…claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES) …” and “…claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES) …”.
There are little to no details in the instant claims detailing as to how the “controlling the flow of funds” occurs from a technological perspective. Instead, the claims only require mere involvement of computer technology in the form of a generic and relatively non-descript “system” which generally enables and/or restricts at a high degree of generality, based upon a classification drawn to the abstract idea recited (e.g., unemployed vs. employed). I.e., the basis for the functionalities of either “…[enabling] disbursement through the disbursement account…” or “…[restricting] disbursement …” performed by the system are rooted in the determined employment statuses drawn to the abstract idea recited (i.e., “when the employment status corresponds to the active status and … when the employment status corresponds to the inactive status…”), and nothing necessarily rooted in computer technology, save for the generic and non-descript system. This still supports examiner’s position that the system is merely applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)), especially given the generality by which the system and machine learning model achieve their desired results drawn to the abstract idea recited.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s argument is attempting to persuade examiner that the claims are patent eligible because of the ordered combination of functionalities present in the claims; specifically, the “first decision engine includ[ing] a machine learning model [verifying/determining an employment status]” and the newly amended “system … enables … and restricts disbursement [based on employment status]” limitations. However, the “decision engine including a machine learning model” performs the classification in a manner not inconsistent with conventional use of a machine learning model10, and the claim limitations provide no particular technological details limiting as to how the system’s implementation of “enabling” or “restricting” occurs, beyond merely stating “…wherein the system…” enables / restricts (i.e., “apply it”). Lastly, the “…first decision engine includ[ing] a machine learning model…” merely being used to provide the abstract determination/classification to the system for the system’s subsequent enable/restrict determination is deficient in indicating the ordered combination points to patent eligibility, as even that particular ordered combination of additional elements amounts to “apply it”, and reads as a post-hoc implementation of the abstract idea, to one of ordinary skill in the art. This is at least in part because there is no particular technological nexus between (a) the technologically conventional machine learning model’s determination of the employment/unemployment status (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)) and (b) the system’s enabling / restricting performed at a high degree of generality (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)). Worded differently, the only nexus between (a) the decision engine’s determination and (b) the system’s subsequent enabling / restricting functionality required by the claims is non-technical in nature – the nexus between those two aspects provided in the claims is concerned only with the abstract idea recited, as the nexus outlined in the claims is that the enabling/restricting is based on “…when the employment status corresponds to an active status…” and “…when the employment status corresponds to the inactive status…”; not anything necessarily rooted in the field of machine learning or computer technology.
Examiner notes that claims 2 and 3 of example 35 were determined to be patent eligible because of a rationale that the features of the additional elements went beyond what was well-understood, routine and conventional, not aspects of the abstract idea recited. For example, see exemplary claim 2 (reproduced further below), in further view of the example’s rationales of why the claims amounted to significantly more under step 2B:
Example 35, Claim 2 claim limitations, underline emphasis added:
“2. …reading, by the automated teller machine, an image from the customer’s mobile communication device that is generated in response to receipt of the random code, wherein the image includes encrypted code data,
decrypting the code data from the read image, and
analyzing the decrypted code data from the read image and the generated code to determine if the decrypted code data from the read image matches the generated code data, and
determining whether the transaction should proceed when a match from the analysis verifies the authenticity of the customer’s identity.”
Example 35, claim 2; eligibility rationale, underline emphasis added:
“…the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data) operates in a nonconventional and non‐generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. …”
Examiner notes that the above eligibility rationale for example 35 shown in item (7) above highlights a contrast between the instant claims and example 35, in light of examiner’s rationales previously provided in item (6). Specifically, Example 35 included interrelated steps drawn to the additional elements which were necessarily rooted in computer technology and went beyond mere “fraud prevention by identity verification before proceeding with a banking transaction” – claim 2 of Example 35 was determined to require “…the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination … based on the analysis of the code data …”, which, as an ordered combination, went beyond any conventional verification process employed by an ATM (i.e., was not well-understood, routine, or conventional). Accordingly, the eligibility rationale of Example 35 does not apply to the instant claims, as the instant claims do not provide any such interrelation of steps necessarily rooted in the additional elements, as previously explained in item (6) – no interrelation of additional elements in the instant claims suggests a non-conventional arrangement necessarily rooted in computer technology, unlike claim 2 of Example 35. Instead, as previously explained in item (6), the only nexus between the system and decision engine/machine learning model outlined in the instant claims argued is that the enabling/restricting is based on “…when the employment status corresponds to an active status…” and “…when the employment status corresponds to the inactive status…”. These are aspects of the abstract idea recited; not anything necessarily rooted in computer technology. Accordingly, the computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Accordingly, examiner respectfully disagrees with these particular supporting arguments presented by Applicant, as there is no substantive evidence that the claims do provide a technological solution to a technological problem. Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims merely automate performance of the abstract idea recited via relatively non-descript additional elements of which are merely applied (MPEP §2106.05(f)), resulting in the claims merely limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments drawn to the implementation being “concrete”11, Examiner notes the mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in either steps 2A or 2B – see MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05:
MPEP §2106.04(d): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an
additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A
Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
MPEP §2106.05: “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility”
The well-understood, routine, and conventional rationale must include involvement of the additional elements / components outside the abstract idea – not just the abstract idea itself. see TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C. 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748, underline and bold emphasis added: “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. I.e., The details of the abstract idea indicated by Applicant in remarks are an insufficient basis for patent eligibility under the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” rationale – see also the following case law and MPEP cites:
MPEP § 2106 I:
“eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claimed invention has utility, because "[u]tility is not the test for patent-eligible subject matter." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1380, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151:
“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” (emphasis omitted).
BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
MPEP § 2106.05, underline emphasis added:
“…An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”.
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 17-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature [i.e., where it lies entirely within the realm of abstract ideas,] is ineligible for patenting…Under the principles developed in interpreting §101, patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”
It is for the reasons / considerations above that Applicant’s argument asserting that “…the ordered combination of identifying a predictable pattern, calculating advanced wages available for disbursement, verifying employment status … and … directing a flow of funds responsive to the employment status … are an ordered combination that is not merely instructions to implement disbursing advanced wages within a particular environment”12 is not persuasive, as the argument is primarily drawn to details of the abstract idea recited, and do not provide sufficient basis for why the additional elements themselves go beyond mere performance of well understood, routine, conventional activities, either individually or as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, for the reasons listed above, as well as the reasons provided in 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
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 1-2,6-10,14-15,17-18,59-60,72-73 and 81-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test13. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
When analyzed under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test14, each of the claims are directed to one of either “A system…comprising one or more processors; and one or more memories…” or a “…method …”. Therefore, each of the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
In light of step 2A Alice/Mayo analysis performed on the instant claims15, claims 1-2,6-10,14-20,59-60,72, 73, 81, and 82 have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea of selective disbursement of advanced wages. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 59 is analogous to system claim 1 under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 1 (below) are similarly applied to claim 59, mutatis mutandis.
When analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 1-2,6-10,14-15,17-18,59-60,72-73 and 81-82 recite a method of organizing human activity16, because independent claims 1 and 59 recite limitations drawn to a method of:
“1. … disbursing advanced wages to an employee prior to a payment date of scheduled wages for a pay period, … perform[ing] operations including:
(a) identifying a predictable pattern for i) an amount of scheduled wages received by an employee, ii) a frequency of the scheduled wages received, iii) a rate at which the scheduled wages are accrued during a pay period, or iv) a combination thereof;
(b) calculating an amount of advanced wages available for disbursement to the employee, based on i) a cumulative time worked by the employee during the pay period, ii) the predictable pattern, iii) expenditures by the employee, iv) a threshold percentage of the predicted predictable pattern for the amount of the scheduled wages, v) a threshold amount, or vi) a combination thereof;
(c) verifying an employment status of the employee during the pay period using a … model that receives employment status data for the employee, wherein the … model incorporates a respective weight for each type of the employment status data, wherein each respective weight is determined using … data that includes historical employment status data, wherein the employment status corresponds to an active status or an inactive status, and wherein the historical employment status data indicates whether the employee or other individual received scheduled wages for a given pay period; and
(d) responsive to the employment status verification, … directing a flow of funds between two or more financial accounts associated with the system, to provide a safeguard for a disbursement account used to disburse the advanced wages to the employee, … set a limit of an amount available to be disbursed by the disbursement account based at least partially on the amount of the advanced wages available for disbursement to the employee … enable… disbursement through the disbursement account when the employment status corresponds to the active status and restrict…disbursement when the employment status corresponds to the inactive status;
… be in communication with one or more financial accounts associated with the employee, the two or more financial accounts associated with the system accounts, the disbursement account, or any combination thereof, so as to perform operations from one or more of (a) - (d).”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification17, the above claim limitations of claims 1 and 59 both recite commercial and/or legal interactions of selective disbursement of advanced wages,, including steps of (a) identifying a predictable pattern for i) the amount of scheduled wages received by an employee, ii) the frequency of the scheduled wages received, iii) a rate at which the scheduled wages are accrued during the pay period ("pay rate") , or iv) a combination thereof, (b) calculating an amount of advanced wages available ("max advanced wages") for disbursement to the employee, the max advanced wages based on i) the cumulative time worked by the employee during the pay period, ii) the predictable pattern, iii) expenditures by the employee, iv) a threshold percentage of the predicted pattern amount of the scheduled wages, v) a threshold amount, or vi) a combination thereof; (c) verifying an employment status of the employee during the pay period using a model that receives employment status data for the employee, wherein the model incorporates a respective weight for each type of the employment status data, wherein the employment status corresponds to an active status or an inactive status, and wherein each respective weight is determined using … data that includes historical employment status data, and wherein the historical employment status data indicates whether the employee or other individual received scheduled wages for a given pay period; and, (d) … responsive to the employment status verification, … directing a flow of funds between two or more financial accounts associated with a system ("system accounts"), so as to provide a safeguard for a disbursement account used to disburse advanced wages to the employee, wherein a limit of an amount available to be disbursed by the disbursement account ("disbursement limit") is based at least partially on the max advanced wages, and wherein disbursement is enabled when the employment status corresponds to the active status and disbursement is restricted when the employment status corresponds to the inactive status. Furthermore, Examiner notes clauses (c) and (d) of the claims correspond to fundamental economic principles of mitigating risk, under broadest reasonable interpretation. (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
The aforementioned determination made under step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis is supported by the following18:
Applicant specification’s ¶2 suggests the claimed invention is generally drawn to facilitating early access to wages: “…What is needed, therefore, are techniques and supporting systems that facilitate early access to earned and accrued wages in an efficient and cost-effective manner while mitigating accounting ledgers between various sources of funds…”, where the techniques corresponding to early wage access are drawn to solving problems that are rooted not in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, but rather of how human activity itself is typically organized: “…Although many workers have adequate funds to pay their monthly expenses, due to infrequent expenses … many workers live paycheck to paycheck, or simply need additional funds temporarily to cover unanticipated costs. In most cases, consumers may resort to credit cards, which have high fees and interest rates... All the while, the employer essentially “owes” the employee a certain portion of their wages for worked performed, but because the end of the pay period has not yet arrived, the employee cannot access or use those owed monies.”
The preambles of independent claims 1 and 59 indicating the claimed apparatus and method is “…for disbursing advanced wages to an employee prior to a payment date of wages for a pay period,…”
Applicant’s title of invention does not suggest the Applicant’s claimed invention is focused on anything other than automated funds movement for expenditures.
Case law precedent indicates that the specificity of an abstract idea does not make the abstract idea any less abstract – see the following:
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible …”.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d at 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “… a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”.
This judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 59 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test19:
The additional elements “A system…”, “…the system comprising one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform…”, “…using a first decision engine, wherein the first decision engine includes a machine learning model that receives … [data]…” “…training...”, “…automatically…”, “…wherein the system is configured to…”, “…wherein the system…” “wherein any one of the one or more processors is configured to…”, and “system” of claims 1 and 59 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited selective disbursement of advanced wages – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)). This stance is supported by ¶2 of Applicant specification, suggesting the claimed invention is primarily drawn to facilitating early access to wages: “What is needed, therefore, are techniques and supporting systems that facilitate early access to earned and accrued wages in an efficient and cost-effective manner while mitigating accounting ledgers between various sources of funds”, where techniques corresponding to early wage access are drawn to solving an abstract problem: “Although many workers have adequate funds to pay their monthly expenses, due to infrequent expenses … many workers live paycheck to paycheck, or simply need additional funds temporarily to cover unanticipated costs. In most cases, consumers may resort to credit cards, which have high fees and interest rates... All the while, the employer essentially “owes” the employee a certain portion of their wages for worked performed, but because the end of the pay period has not yet arrived, the employee cannot access or use those owed monies.”. Furthermore, ¶86 of Applicant specification suggests embodiments of the claimed system may include a general-purpose computer, as nearly every general-purpose computer generic to computer technology (e.g., the “system” claimed) generally includes “…processors…” and “…one or more memories…”. Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical descriptions of the system or system components that could be reasonably construed as providing a technological solution to a technological problem – See Fig. 4, ref 400 and ¶¶7, 22, 23. Accordingly, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims’ additional elements are indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added to the abstract idea ‘after the fact’ / ‘post-hoc’, which is insufficient to indicate improvements to computer functionality20.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed system is specifically employed to perform the operations drawn to the abstract idea, beyond merely stating “… the system …storing instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations including:” and using a relatively non-descript decision engine, which is only limited in so far that it includes a machine learning model. This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”. As a further example that the claims do not provide sufficient details indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem to computer technology or the field of machine learning, the “…using a first decision engine, wherein the first decision engine includes a machine learning model that receives … [data]” limitations are claimed at a high degree of generality and merely used to process data drawn to the abstract idea, so as to achieve desired results rooted in the abstract idea recited (i.e., verifying employment status) – see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Examiner notes that nearly every predictive supervised machine learning model uses training data to predict an output.
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). The purported improvements discussed in Applicant specification are squarely drawn to the abstract idea itself – see ¶2 of Applicant specification. Furthermore, merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the abstract idea does not confer patent eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1 and 59 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B21, claims 1 and 59 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 59, each when viewed as a whole, do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as their additional elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages concept within a particular technological environment – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept” (Step 2B: No. The claims do not amount to significantly more).
Hence, independent claims 1 and 59 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have each been given the full Alice/Mayo analysis, including analyzing the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims are also held patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 6, 15, 73, 81, and 82, their limitations each fail to provide any further additional elements outside the abstract idea, and only further specify the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages concept. Furthermore, their limitations do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of their respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claims 6, 15, 73, 81, and 82 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 6, 15, 73, 81, and 82 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 60, they recite further details of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages, per reciting limitations drawn to “…adjust the disbursement limit based on the time worked by the employee during the pay period …”. The additional elements, “…wherein the one or more processors is configured to automatically…” and “…automatically…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the disbursing advanced wages to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 60 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 7, it recites further details of the abstract disbursing advanced wages, per reciting limitations “…wherein the direct deposit account is configured to receive at least a portion of an amount of the scheduled wages, …transfer from the direct deposit account any disbursement of advanced wages to an operating account configured to enable disbursement of said advanced wages”. The additional element, “…the one or more processors is configured to automatically…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the disbursing advanced wages to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 8, it recites further details of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages, per reciting limitations “…transfer to the secured account at least some of the amount of the scheduled wages received by the direct deposit account, such that the disbursement limit is based at least partially on i) the max advanced wages, and ii) an amount of funds in the secured account (“secured funds” ), and wherein the disbursement limit is … adjusted based on changes to the max advanced wages and secured funds”. The additional elements, “…wherein the one or more processors is configured to automatically…”, and “…automatically…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the selective disbursement of advanced wages to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 9, it recites further details of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages, per reciting limitations “…wherein when the disbursement account disburses an amount of funds exceeding the max advanced wages, … transfer at least a portion of the secured funds to the payment account to facilitate pay back of such excess amount”. The additional element, “…the one or more processors is configured to…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 10, it recites further details of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages, per reciting limitations “…transfer the at least a portion of the secured funds to the payment account according to a first prescribed frequency …”. The additional element “…wherein the one or more processors is configured to automatically…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the selective disbursement of advanced wages to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 72, they recite further details of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages, per reciting limitations drawn to “…transfer funds between the two or more system accounts in a sequential manner so as to reduce a risk of the disbursement limit being met and/or the disbursement limit being maintained, thereby rendering the disbursement account unable to disburse any additional funds to the employee…”. The additional elements “…the one or more processors is configured to automatically…” and “…automatically…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and merely limits the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 14 and 72 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 17, it recites further details of the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages (furthered by mathematical expressions and/or calculations), per reciting limitations: “wherein the first decision engine … comprises … a … model, a decision tree, an analytical expression, or a combination thereof”. The additional element “…trained…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 17 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 18, its limitations fail to provide any further additional elements outside the abstract idea, and only further specify the abstract selective disbursement of advanced wages concept. Furthermore, their limitations do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of its respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., all the pending claims.
2 See pages 8 – 11 of Applicant Remarks.
3 See page 8 of Applicant Remarks.
4 See pages 8-11 of Applicant Remarks.
5 See last paragraph of page 8 of Applicant Remarks.
6 See second paragraph of Page 9 of Remarks.
7 See page 9 of Applicant Remarks.
8 Page 9 of Remarks.
9 Page 9 of Remarks
10 I.e., “…wherein the machine learning model incorporates a respective weight for each type of the … data, wherein each weight is determined using training data that includes historical … data, wherein the … status corresponds to … [a binary classification] …”
11 Pages 8 and 11 of Remarks.
12 Page 11 of Remarks.
13 See MPEP § 2106 I.
14 See MPEP §§ 2106.03 I, II.
15 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
16 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
17 See MPEP § 2111.
18 MPEP §2106.07, underline emphasis added: “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter.”
20 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2) & 2106.05(a) I.
21 See MPEP § 2106.05.
Prosecution Insights