SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATIC ROUTING OF WAGES

§101 §103

DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 June 2026 has been entered. The following is a non-final office action in response to the amendment filed 25 June 2026. Applicant’s amendment filed 9/26/2025 which included amendments to Claims 1 and 43. Claims 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22-42, 46-48, 51-58, and 60-63 were previously cancelled. The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63/421518 filed 11/01/2022 has been received and acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 43-45, 49-50, and 59 are currently pending and have been examined. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) That the amended independent claims 1 and 43 are “ .. directed to a specific technical solution for employment verification and controlled disbursement of funds that integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. The employment verification element (e.g., element (d) of claim 1) and the determination of a restricted available transfer amount (e.g., element (e) of claim 1) transform the claim into a concrete technical improvement that solves specific technical problems in employment verification and advanced fund disbursement systems… element (e) of the claims recites "determining, based at least in part on the employment status and a duration of an active status during the pay period, a restricted available transfer amount, wherein the restricted available transfer amount is less than the available transfer amount," and element (f) recites "in response to the verification, automatically transferring the restricted available transfer amount to the first financial account." … creates a cohesive technological solution that controls access to and distribution of funds rather than merely appending verification steps to an abstract business method. The employment status determination is not merely a preliminary data-gathering step, it directly restricts and controls the amount of funds that can be disbursed, demonstrating that any alleged abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application….” (Applicant’s response 8-9) Additionally, again referencing Example 35, Applicant further asserts that the instant amended claims are analogous to the patent eligible claims of Example 35 “…the present claims integrate employment verification to control the amount of advanced funds accessible to an employee….. This ordered combination goes beyond merely gathering employment data, it actively controls access to financial resources based on that verification… the processes claimed are not routine or conventional sequences of events… Conventional employment verification involves obtaining employment data and comparing current employment data with past data to determine a binary true/false employment status. In contrast, the claimed process verifies employment status that corresponds to an active status, an inactive status, or a combination thereof, and then determines the restricted available transfer amount based at least in part on the employment status and a duration of an active status during the pay period… This unconventional approach transforms the claims from a routine business method into a technical solution for controlling advanced fund disbursements…” (Applicant’s response 9-10). (2) Applicant additionally argues that the recited claim amendments (specifically (d)- (f)) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea which “…use of a restricted available disbursement amount determined based on, at least in part, the employment status and a duration of an active status during the pay period represents an unconventional implementation of ensuring determination of available funds, solving the technical problem of ensuring reliable and accurate disbursement of advanced funds... the ordered combination of… as recited by amended claims 1 and 43 is an ordered combination that is not merely instructions to implement disbursing advanced wages within a particular environment. Rather, the claimed elements recite a specific sequence of steps using a concrete set of actions…” (Applicant’s response, 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted previously and in the rejection below. Applicant’s own arguments characterize the invention as in “for employment verification and controlled disbursement of funds ” As stated previously, this is a commercial or legal transaction and as such (as noted previously and below) falls into the subject matter grouping of : methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the recited invention is directed to an abstract idea. The ‘problem’ being solved is a business challenge (i.e. employment verification). At most the recited invention is directed to an improvement to the an abstract idea using technology/computing elements recited at a high level of generality. As noted below, this is ‘apply it ‘(See MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus the instant recited claims are distinguishable from the patent eligible claims of Example 35 and Applicant’s general assertion that the instant claims are analogous to the patent eligible claims of Example 35 are unavailing. Similar to patent ineligible Claim1 of Example 35, the instant recited claims do not provide ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. No improvement to technology has been claimed. (Specification, [83-87] processor) Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. (Applicant’s arguments 1-2). With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the prior art of Dombroski and Shah fail to disclose the newly amended claim limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees as cited in the rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection cited below. . As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. 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 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 43-45, 49-50, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. (1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of automatically partitioning and transferring scheduled wages. In the instant case, Claims 43-45, 49-50, and 59 are directed to a process. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21 are directed to a system. (2a) Prong 1: Payment of wages is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: 1. (Original) A … for automatically partitioning and transferring scheduled wages based on advanced wages disbursed for a pay period prior to receiving the scheduled wages, …. including: identifying a predictable pattern for i) an amount of scheduled wages received by the employee, ii) an 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; …, from the employee, input relating to a desired amount of advanced wages to be transferred to a first financial account associated with the employee; calculating a distribution of the scheduled wages based on i) the predictable pattern amount of scheduled wages, ii) advanced wages disbursed to the employee during the pay period, iii) outstanding advanced wages from a previous pay period, iv) the desired amount of advanced wages to be transferred, or v) a combination thereof, …is configured to determine an available transfer amount is determined that is less than or equal to the desired amount; verifying an employment status of the employee during the pay period by at least one of i) monitoring a location of a mobile device associated with the employee, ii) sending an employment email to the employee, or iii) receiving an employment email from the employee wherein the employment status corresponds to an active status, an inactive status, or a combination thereof; determining, based at least in part on the employment status and a duration of an active status during the pay period, a restricted available transfer amount, wherein the restricted available transfer amount is less than the available transfer amount; and in response to the verification, automatically transferring the available transfer amount to the first financial account from a second financial account associated with the system, wherein the second financial account is configured to receive the scheduled wages;… in communication with the first financial account, the second financial account, or both, so as to perform operations from one or more of (a) - (f). 43. (Original) A method for disbursing advanced wages to an employee prior to a payment date of scheduled wages for a pay period, the method comprising: identifying a predictable pattern for i an amount of scheduled wages received by the employee, ii) an 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; …, from the employee, input relating to a desired amount of advanced wages to be transferred to a first financial account associated with the employee; calculating a distribution of the scheduled wages based on i) the predictable pattern amount of scheduled wages, ii) advanced wages disbursed to the employee during the pay period, iii) outstanding advanced wages from a previous pay period, iv) the desired amount of advanced wages to be transferred, or v) a combination thereof, wherein an available transfer amount that is less than or equal to the desired amount is determined; verifying an employment status of the employee during the pay period by at least one of i) monitoring a location of a mobile device associated with the employee, ii) sending an employment email to the employee, or iii) receiving an employment email from the employee wherein the employment status corresponds to an active status, an inactive status, or a combination thereof; determining, based at least in part on the employment status and a duration of an active status during the pay period, a restricted available transfer amount, wherein the restricted available transfer amount is less than the available transfer amount; and in response to the verification, automatically transferring the restricted available transfer amount to the first financial account from a second financial account associated with the system), wherein the second financial account is configured to receive the scheduled wages As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity . Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of identifying…calculating…verifying…determining.. transferring… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea). The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receiving…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) (2b) In the instant case, Claims 43-45, 49-50, and 59 are directed to a process. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21 are directed to a system. Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: processors merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions.(See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [83-87] processor) The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims. It is noted that claims 2-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 44-45, 49-50, and 59 introduces the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining elements and steps: …transfer amount… (Claims 2, 44);…sending…an alert…(Claims 3, 16, 45); …limiting…transfer amount..(Claim 4) … employment status … (Claim 7 and 49) …verifying…( Claims 8, 17, 50, 59) and the steps and elements of the various decision engines (i.e. models) (Claims 10, 12, 19, 21) ….past scheduled wages data…(Claim 13)… past employee financial activities …(Claim 14). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements (processor, decision engine) amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [83-87] processor; [89-90] decision engine…. Any one of regression model…decision tee, random forest, gradient boosted machine learning mode, support vector machine, Naïve Bayes model, k-means cluster, or neural network (e.g., feed-forward networks, convolutional neural networks (CNN), deep neural networks (DNN), autoencoder neural networks, generative adversarial networks, or recurrent networks (e.g., long short-term memory networks (LSTM), bidirectional recurrent networks, deep bi-directional recurrent networks), or any combination thereof…any one of the decision engine(s) described herein is a logistic regression model. In particular embodiments, any one of the decision engine(s) described therein is a random forest classifier. In particular embodiments, any one of the decision engine(s) described herein is a gradient boosting model. [0090] In some embodiments, any one of the decision engine(s) described herein (e.g., a trained model) can) …). Therefore, Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 43-45, 49-50, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 43-45, 49-50, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110082778 A1, Dombroski et al, hereinafter referred to as Dombroski in view of US 2016/0086261 A1, Shah et al. hereinafter referred to as Shah further in view of US 20030065618 A1, VanDeBoe, Jr. hereinafter referred to as VanDeBoe. Claims 1 and 43 Dombroski discloses a method and system for disbursing advanced wages to an employee prior to a payment date of scheduled wages for a pay period, (See at least Dombroski, [44] employees can draw against available earned income they have earned but not been paid or request an instant credit advance on future earned wages) the method comprising: 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 the a pay period, or iv) a combination thereof (See at least Dombroski, [26] identifying information… pay cycles and pay rate… ) Dombroski further discloses requesting funds. (See at least Dombroski, Claim 1 (i) receiving a request… to receive payroll funds…) Dombroski does not disclose the following; however, Shah suggests: receiving, from the employee, input relating to a desired amount of advanced wages to be transferred to a first financial account associated with the employee; ( See at least Shah, [220] enter/specify a desired cash amount… ) Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Dombroski discloses a method and system of payment of accrued employee wages. Shah is another method and system of providing access to earned but unpaid income. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of payment of accrued but unpaid wages). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Dombroski / Shah. Dombroski further discloses: calculating a distribution of the scheduled wages based on i) the predictable pattern amount of scheduled wages, ii) advanced wages disbursed to the employee during the pay period, iii) outstanding advanced wages from a previous pay period, iv) the desired amount of advanced wages to be transferred, or v) a combination thereof, wherein an available transfer amount is determined that is less than or equal to the desired amount is determined; (See at least Dombroski, Fig. 1 [46] calculates and logs available earned income… draw against available earned income… ) verifying an employment status of the employee during the pay period by at least one of i) monitoring a location of a mobile device associated with the employee, ii) sending an employment email to the employee, or iii) receiving an employment email from the employee….; (See at least Dombroski, Figs. 1-4; [25-28] …. applicant registration…. employee enrollment….identifying information about employees, their pay cycles and pay rate, information about employer etc. … application data is reconciled against and compare to the employer’s HRMS and/or payroll systems data in addition to reconciled against regulatory requirements…pass/fail decision is made… whether to accept or reject the applicant/enrollee… decision is to reject or decline… the applicant and employer can be notified…in writing… (e.g. an email, letter, etc.)… accepted…applicant receives creation and activation instructions…) …. in response to the verification, automatically transferring the restricted available transfer amount to the first financial account from a second financial account associated with a system, wherein the second financial account is configured to receive the scheduled wages. wherein any one of the one or more processors is configured to be in communication with the first financial account, the second financial account, or both, so as to perform operations from one or more of (a) - (f). (See at least Dombroski, Fig. 1 WageBank Transfer) Dombroski also discloses the employer being able to extend advanced payment against further earning and to control the amount of the advance (i.e. payment) based on ‘common sense’ criteria (i.e. good employee=low risk=advance worthy, a new or marginal employee=more risk=less advance worthy). Also Dombroski sets a card issued to be limited to an amount above, at or below the user’s monthly earned income and employees drawing against available earned income they have earned but not yet been pair or request an instant credit advance on future earned wages.)(Specification, [24], [28], [46]) Shah also teaches the ‘active employee status’ and designating as full time, part time or contractual. (Specification [62], [110] [137]) Dombroski does not disclose the following; however, VanDeBoe suggests: d……wherein the employment status corresponds to an active status, an inactive status, or a combination thereof (See at least VanDeBoe, [36] employee status.. such as change income legvel, part-time versus full time employment, temporary versus permanent employment, etc.) determining, based at least in part on the employment status and a duration of an active status during the pay period, a restricted available transfer amount, wherein the restricted available transfer amount is less than the available transfer amount; and (See at least VanDeBoe, [36] issuing entity could automatically alter the available advance limit per pay period based on changes in employee status.. such as change income level, part-time versus full time employment, temporary versus permanent employment, etc.) Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Dombroski discloses a method and system of payment of accrued employee wages. Shah is another method and system of providing access to earned but unpaid income. VanDeBoe is another method and system of payroll advance system with a feature to limit the funds that can be accessed. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of payment of accrued but unpaid wages with a limit to the amount of funds that can be accessed). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Dombroski / Shah/ VanDeBoe. Claims 2 and 44 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 43. Dombroski further discloses: wherein the available transfer amount is based on a difference between an amount of scheduled wages received and the advanced wages disbursed to the employee during the i) pay period and/or ii) one or more previous pay periods, such that i) if the difference is greater than the desired amount, the available transfer amount equals the desired amount, and ii) if the difference is less than the desired amount, the available transfer amount equals at most the difference. (See at least Dombroski, [46] calculates and logs available earned income… draw against available earned income… ) Claims 3 and 45 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 43. Dombroski does not disclose the following; however, Shah suggests: sending an alert to the employee, a system administrator, or both, when the determined available transfer amount is less than the desired amount. (See at least Shah, [41] …the service of obtaining a cash advance based upon income that has already been earned by the employees but not yet paid by the employers to the employees and/or also possibly reflective of certain as-of-yet unearned income….results of the access or use… employer computer system can be notified or updated.. [133] risk controls… [147] advance employee accesses in comparison to total amount available) Claim 4 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1. Dombroski further discloses: wherein the operations further include limiting the available transfer amount to a maximum threshold amount and/or a maximum percentage of the predictable pattern amount of the scheduled wages. (See at least Dombroski, [28] card… limited amount of funds on the card itself corresponding to the user’s available earned income) Claims 7 and 49 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 43. Dombroski further discloses: verifying corresponds to an active status or an inactive status, the active status corresponds a prediction of the employee receiving next scheduled wages, and the inactive status corresponds to a prediction of the employee not receiving the next scheduled wages. ( See at least Dombroski, application data reconciled against and compared to the employer’s HRMS and/or payroll …data… pass/fail decision is made… whether to accept or reject the applicant/enrollee) Claims 8 and 50 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 7 and 49. Dombroski does not disclose the following; however, Shah suggests: wherein verifying the employment status comprises predicting whether the employee will receive the next scheduled wages using a first decision engine, wherein the active status corresponds to an employee receiving the next scheduled wages. (See at least Shah, [110] active employment status …based on earned but unpaid… [137] Employee status) Claim 10 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 8. Dombroski does not disclose the following; however, Shah suggests: wherein the first decision engine applies one or more employment status data for the employee, the employment status data comprising past scheduled wages data, past employee financial activities data, past disbursed advanced wages data, past restore faults data, or a combination thereof, to predict whether the employee will receive the next scheduled wages. (See at least Shah, [110] active employment status …based on earned but unpaid… [137] Employee status) Claim 12 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 10. Dombroski further discloses: wherein the first decision engine applies the one or more employments status data using a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model incorporates a respective weight for each type of employment status data, wherein each respective weight is determined using trained data of historical employment status data relating to the employee, from a cohort of individuals, or both, wherein each data input is correlated with whether i) the respective individual of the cohort of individuals, or ii) employee, received scheduled wages for a given pay period. (See at least Dombroski, [24] low risk… more risk..[26]… identifying information about employees.. pay cycles.. pay rates…pass/fail decision… [43] machine learning.. ..Claims 12-22) Claim 13 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 10. Dombroski further discloses: wherein past scheduled wages data comprises receipt of on-time scheduled wages, missing scheduled wages, the amount of scheduled wages with respect to the predicted pattern amount, or any combination thereof. (See at least Dombroski, [24] low risk… more risk..[26]… identifying information about employees.. pay cycles.. pay rates…pass/fail decision …Claim 23) Claim 14 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 10. Dombroski further discloses: wherein past employee financial activities comprises transactions at first financial account, spending by the employee, or both. (See at least Dombroski [29] track transaction history…) Claim 16 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 10. Dombroski further discloses: wherein the operation further include sending an alert to the employee, a system administrator, or both, if the employee is predicted not to receive the next scheduled wages. (See at least Dombroski, [24] low risk… more risk..[26]… identifying information about employees.. pay cycles.. pay rates…pass/fail decision …) Claim 17 and 59 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 7 and 49. Dombroski further discloses: wherein verifying the employment status comprises determining an employee risk level using a second decision engine by the one or more processors. ( See at least Dombroski, [24] criteria … employee …risk) Claim 19 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 17. Dombroski further discloses: wherein the second decision engine applies one or more risk factors data comprising transactions at the employee account data, past verifications of the employee email account data, past verifications of the location of the employee data, past restore faults data, income stability data, past employment inactive status data, or a combination thereof, to determine an employee risk level. ( See at least Dombroski, [24] criteria … employee …risk) Claim 21 Dombroski, Shah and VanDeBoe disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 19. Dombroski further discloses: wherein the second decision engine applies the one or more risk factors data using a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model incorporates a respective weight for each type of risk factor data, wherein each respective weight is determined using trained data of historical risk factor data relating to the employee, wherein each data input is correlated with whether the employee received the scheduled wages for a given pay period. (See at least Dombroski, [24] low risk… more risk..[26]… identifying information about employees.. pay cycles.. pay rates…pass/fail decision… [43] machine learning.. ..Claims 12-22) Conclusion 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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691