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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 8/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments received 11/11/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 59, 60, 72, 73, 81, and 82 are amended.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2,6-10,14-15,17-18,59-60,72-73 and 81-82 are pending and examined.
This action is final, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The claim objections of claims 15 and 73 drawn to “…correspond a prediction…” are withdrawn in light of the amendments received.
The claim objection of claims 59 drawn to “…wherein the a limit …” are withdrawn in light of the amendments received.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2,6-10,14-20,59, 60,72, 73, 81, and 82 drawn to antecedent basis issue of “…the predicted pattern amount of the scheduled wages…” are withdrawn in light of the amendments received.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1, 2, 59, and 60 relying upon United States Patent Publication No. US 9202250 B1 (Palaniappan) are withdrawn in light of the amendments received.
Rejections
Claims 1-2,6-10,14-15,17-18,59-60,72-73 and 81-821 are 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…”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 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 … provid[ing] employment status confirmation without human manipulation”. 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 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).
Applicant’s arguments drawn to Example 35 are conclusory and not drawn to any particular technological details that could be reasonably construed as indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem. 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, let alone how any comparisons between the improvement of example 35 and the purported improvement(s) identified by Applicant. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully fails to find applicant’s arguments drawn to example 35 persuasive.
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. Instead, 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”6, Examiner notes the mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in 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”
Applicant’s arguments drawn to “unexpected technical advantages” (page 10 of Remarks) do not include any underlying reasoning or rationale rooted in the additional elements themselves, and do not explain what even is “unexpected”; instead, the argument merely states “synergistic effects” occur without any subsequent detail.
The machine learning itself is claimed at such a high degree of generality, that it cannot be reasonably asserted the claims provide “an unconventional implementation of machine learning model-based prediction technology”, contrary to Applicant’s assertions on page 10 of Remarks. Even though the claims utilize computer components and machine learning, nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computers / systems that are beyond conventional functionality of generic computers and machine learning being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea they are merely used as a tool for.
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 test7. 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 test8, 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 claims9, 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 disbursing 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 activity10, 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, 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;
… 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 specification11, the above claim limitations of claims 1 and 59 both recite commercial and/or legal interactions of disbursing 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 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, and, (d) … responsive to 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. 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 following12:
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 test13:
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. 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 disbursing 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 functionality14.
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 disbursing 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 2B15, 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 disbursing 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 disbursing 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 disbursing 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 disbursing 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 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 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 9, it recites further details of the abstract disbursing 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 disbursing 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 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 10 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 72, they recite further details of the abstract disbursing 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 disbursing 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 disbursing 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.
No Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-20 overcome 35 U.S.C. 102/103 for the following reasons:
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the following claimed subject matter when viewed either as an ordered combination, and does not teach:
…disbursing advanced wages to an employee prior to a payment date of scheduled wages for a pay period, ... operations including:
…
(c) verifying an employment status of the employee during the pay period using a first decision engine, wherein the first decision engine includes a machine learning model that receives employment status data for the employee, wherein the machine learning model incorporates a respective weight for each type of the employment status data, wherein each respective weight is determined using training 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, automatically 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, wherein the system is configured to 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;
wherein any one of the one or more processors is configured to 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).
The closest prior art of record includes:
United States Patent Publication No. US 9202250 B1 (Palaniappan). As indicated in the previous 102(a)(1) rejection within pages 18-20 of the 8/11/2025 Non-Final Rejection, Palaniappan discloses the limitations corresponding to clauses (a), (b), and (d)16 of the instant claims, in addition to the “wherein” clause17.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20220188942 A1 (Mossoba ‘942) – see abstract and ¶¶36-41. ¶¶36-41 discloses transaction analysis in order to determine whether the account includes employment-related transactions, and determining changes in those set of transactions, e.g., for identifying income within specified time ranges. ¶37 discloses the analysis of the platform may result in the analysis platform determining whether or not the transactions reflect a change in employment status and/or income status of the user. Similar to ¶37, at least ¶41, and ¶¶70, 71 contemplates the analysis performed by the income analysis platform may be able to determine a likely change in employment status and/or income status. ¶60 discloses the income analysis platform may utilize a machine learning model.
Conclusion
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The following prior art generally drawn to providing employees cash advances:
US 20240106906 A1 (Dunjic ‘906). ¶¶2-4 and abstract are relevant.
US 20230084370 A1 (Bradford). Abstract and ¶2 are relevant.
US 20220129994 A1 (Zubenko). ¶¶1-12 and abstract are relevant.
US 20180330451 A1 (Volberg). ¶¶2, 8, are relevant.
US 20190325529 A1 (Haitz). At least ¶¶57-60 is relevant.
US 20050075969 A1 (Neilson). At least ¶¶5-6 and abstract are relevant.
US 20120054088 A1 (Edrington). At least abstract and ¶¶7, 8, 80 are relevant.
US 20030065618 A1 (VanDeBoe). At least ¶¶15, 24,26 and claims 1 and 2 are relevant.
US 20200097916 A1 (Hackert). At least abstract is relevant.
US 20110082778 A1 (Dombrowski). At least abstract, ¶¶2-6, and ¶43 are relevant.
US 20160086261 A1 (Shah ‘261). At least ¶19 is relevant.
US 20160371661 A1 (Shah ‘661). At least abstract and ¶¶2, 104, 168 are relevant.
US 11869096 B2 (Aaron). At least abstract claim 5 are relevant.
US 20220058586 A1 (Dias). At least abstract and ¶¶1,7 are relevant.
The following prior art stating or otherwise suggesting transactions as typically being “sequential”:
US 20060157557 A1 (Lee ‘557). See ¶20.
US 20140207668 A1 (Hermansen). See ¶2.
The following prior art, pertaining to methods of predicting employment status:
US 20210241382 A1 (Mossoba ‘382).
The following prior art, pertaining to providing alerts and employee-related predictions using machine learning:
US 20210233047 A1 (Benkreira). At least abstract, Fig. 1D and ¶¶15, 23, 26, are relevant.
The following prior art, generally drawn to employee verification:
US 20240086852 A1 (Buell). At least the Abstract and ¶6 are relevant.
US 20130013489 A1 (Kremen). At least abstract and ¶¶2-6 and 26 are relevant.
The following prior art, generally drawn to machine learning in context of cash advances to employees:
US 20220188943 A1 (Krug). At least Abstract and ¶¶11, 24, 27, 30, 45, 46, 132,151 are relevant.
US 11443392 B1 (Lee ‘392). At least abstract and Background are relevant.
US 11094020 B1 (Lee ‘020).
US 20220237614 A1 (Lin ‘614). At least Abstract and ¶¶5, 72 are relevant.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 – 10 of Applicant Remarks.
3 See page 8 of Applicant Remarks.
4 See page 8 of Applicant Remarks.
5 See page 9 of Applicant Remarks.
6 Page 9 of Remarks.
7 See MPEP § 2106 I.
8 See MPEP §§ 2106.03 I, II.
9 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
10 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
11 See MPEP § 2111.
12 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.”
14 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2) & 2106.05(a) I.
15 See MPEP § 2106.05.
16 Excepting newly amended limitation “responsive to the employment status verification…”.
17 Excepting newly amended limitations drawn to the instant clause (c) (i.e., the limitations drawn to employment verification).