DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This application has PRO 63/429,100 11/30/2022
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are currently pending and rejected.
Claims 7-20 are canceled.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-6 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards categorizing transactions associated with a client. The concept is clearly related to managing human transactional activities, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-6 and 21-34 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards categorizing transactions associated with a client. The concept comprises receiving a transaction, categorizing the transaction as a credit card payment transaction or a transfer transaction, applying container logic to the transaction, determining whether a counterpart transaction is identified based on applying the container logic, place the transaction in a buffer base on a flag of the container, displaying a client dashboard which does not include transaction in the buffer, and periodically retesting the transaction to determine if a new matching counterpart transaction becomes available within a predefined amount of time. Paragraph 0027 of Applicant’s specification clearly discloses the claims are directed to a management platform which is a transaction categorizer that categorizes each transaction received from financial institution server and delivers the data to end user. In other words, the present claims are directed to managing human transaction activities. Thus, the present claims clearly fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., a management platform which comprises a non-transitory memory and a processor) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claim 1 recites a management platform which comprises a non-transitory memory and a processor as additional elements. Independent claim 1 also recites a transaction categorizer, a container assigner, and a client dashboard as additional software elements. Dependent claims 1-6, 21-28 and 31-34 do not recite any other additional element. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving data, sorting data, applying logic (rules), matching counterpart transaction, displaying result, and periodically repeating the process. Dependent claims 29 and 30 recite a machine learning component. However, Examiner points out that application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning model to be applied, is patent ineligible under 101 (see Recentive v. Fox). The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, independent claim 1 recites a management platform which comprises a non-transitory memory and a processor as additional elements. Independent claim 1 also recites a transaction categorizer, a container assigner, and a client dashboard as additional software elements. Dependent claims 1-6, 21-28 and 31-34 do not recite any other additional element. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving data, sorting data, applying logic (rules), matching counterpart transaction, displaying result, and periodically repeating the process. The additional elements are claimed to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions, such as receiving user inputs (i.e. “receiving or transmitting data over a network”), obtaining projections based on an aggregated dataset (i.e., extracting data and performing calculations), determining a set of values based on user inputs and projections (i.e., performing calculations), deriving and presenting portfolio plan (i.e., performing calculations and analysis, and displaying result of analysis). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. Dependent claims 29 and 30 recite a machine learning component. However, Examiner points out that application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning model to be applied, is patent ineligible under 101 (see Recentive v. Fox). The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Response to Remarks
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the amended claim 1 “is directed to solving a specific technical problem that arises uniquely in real-time multi-institution financial data aggregation systems: when an aggregator pulls transaction data from multiple independent financial institutions simultaneously, a single leg of a two-sided transaction (such as a credit card payment) with frequently arrive from one institution before its counterpart arrives from a separate institution” and if displayed immediately, “this produces a misleading and incorrect picture of the client’s financial position”. Examiner points out that this problem is not unique to computer environment and is not caused by the limitation of computer functionality. The root cause of this issue is the delay of one institution uploading transaction information. Most of the time, this is a business-related issue not a technological one (for example, an institution only upload transaction information in batch at a particular time of the day or on a particular day of the week). Such problem still exists in the physical world – a person manually acquire transactions from different financial institutions could still face the problem of asynchronous data. Moreover, the claimed solution – temporarily storing incomplete transaction pair in a buffer and preventing display of the incomplete transaction pair is not actually improving computer function. Prior computer system could already categorize transactions and store certain transactions in separate storage.
Applicant’s then argued the amended claim 1 “integrates that idea into a practical application through several concrete technical elements working together” – 1) matching transactions across two separate financial accounts at different institutions; 2) withholding a transaction from being displayed; and 3) retesting the transaction to determine if a new matching counterpart transaction become available. Examiner points out that none of these features improve computer function. Claim 1 does not explicitly recite how the transaction pair is determined. The claim merely recites “determining, by the container assigner, whether a counterpart transaction in a second financial account different from a first financial account associated with the transaction is identified based on applying the container logic”, and the container logic is merely based on “a 1determination that the transaction is a credit card payment transaction or a transfer transaction”. These determinations could be easily performed mentally or by programmed algorithms automating mental processes. Holding incomplete transactions in a separate storage and hiding them from user dashboard does not require anything other than off-the-shelf computers. Hiding information from being displayed also does not improve computer function. Computer programmers have the freedom to decide which information should be provided to the users. Periodically retesting the incomplete transactions to look for counterpart transaction could also be scheduled and performed by off-the-shelf computers. The amended claims are still performing an abstract concept of reconciling transaction records using existing computer functionality.
Applicant further argued that the amended claims 29 and 30 recite a specific machine-learning rule-promotion function that changes how the transaction categorization system processes future transactions across clients. Examiner points out that updating system-wide rules with rules and patterns learned from individual clients is a standard feature of machine learning. Lim et al. (KR 20230112375 A) teaches “the present invention updates he global parameters by applying the majority rule to the local parameters learned in each client 20, thereby increasing the learning speed of the neural network model through federated learning, that is, the speed of convergence of the parameters, as well as improving the accuracy of the neural network model” (see page 9).
For these reasons, the amended claims do not recite limitations sufficient to improve computer functionality or integrate the abstract concept into practical application. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 07/14/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner has performed updated search but cannot find relevant prior art to address the amended features. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-6 and 21-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
SEPT-2026
Prosecution Insights