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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 9/26/2025.
Applicant’s amendment filed 9/26/2025 which included amendments to Claims 1,4, 7, 8, 14, 16, 49, and cancellation of Claims 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22-42, 46-48, 51-58, and 60-63.
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 9/26/2025 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 technological solution for employment verification that integrates any abstract ideas into a practical application. The novel employment verification element… transforms the claim from a mere business method into a concrete technological improvement that solves specific technological problems in employment authentication systems…” (Applicant’s response 8)
Referencing Example 35, Applicant further asserts that the instant amended claims are analogous to the patent eligible claims of Example 35 “…because it integrated identity verification technology into a practical application that solved specific technical problems in automated banking systems. Similarly, the present claim integrates employment verification technology into a practical application for automated wage advance systems.” (Applicant’s response 8).
(2) Applicant further argues that the instant amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception because they ( including “novel element (d)”) address “ the specific technical problem of accurately and efficiently verifying employment status in real-time for automated financial systems, and thus is not directed to a judicial exception.” Applicant further asserts that the “employment verification element” is a “technological improvement” over “conventional verification methods” which “ …addresses the technical challenges of false positives and verification delays that plague conventional employment authentication systems…” and “… advances the technical field of employment verification systems…” (Applicant’s response, 8-10) (3) Applicant additionally argues that the recited claim amendments amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea which are “not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field of automated financial services.” (Applicant’s response, 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted previously and in the rejection below. Applicant’s own arguments characterize the invention as in “the filed of automated financial service” and as a “solution for employment verification.” 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. 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. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. (Applicant’s arguments 1-3).
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. Specifically, Applicant argues that in the citation of Claim 7 Drombroski discloses employment verification but does not disclose the specific techniques as recited in the newly amended claim language. Examiner respectfully disagrees as cited in the rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the recited claims. 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: 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) - (e).
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: 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
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…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 59rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110082778 A1, Dombroski et al, hereinafter referred to as Dombroski further in view of US 2016/0086261 A1, Shah et al. hereinafter referred to as Shah.
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: and (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 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. (See at least Dombroski, Fig. 1 WageBank Transfer)
Claims 2 and 44
Dombroski and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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 and Shah 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130013489 A1, METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR VERIFYING EMPLOYMENT VIA ONLINE DATA
US 9,202,250 B1, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISTRIBUTING PAYABLES
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 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