DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
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 in response to a Request Continued Examination dated January 22, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 11-12 and 19-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claims including claims 12 and 20 and recites:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, by a server set of data items associated with a set of wherein each respective data item includes an amount and one or more respective attributes, the one or more respective attributes comprising a merchant identifier and a jurisdiction identifier;
for each respective data item:
determining event category corresponding to the respective data item based at least in part on the one or more respective attributes; and
augmenting the respective data item based on the determined event category and one or more attribute estimations corresponding to the one or more respective attributes, the augmenting adjusting the one or more attribute estimations to indicate a variance between the one or more attribute estimations and the one or more respective attributes.
aggregating, by the server, the set of data items into respective database groups based at least in part on the funding type determined event category, the source identifier, and the jurisdiction identifier;
distributing one or more database groups of the respective database groups to another server separate from the server and based on the jurisdiction identifier associated with the oner or more database groups thereby reducing a processing load on the server for remaining database groups of the respective database groups;
transmitting, by the server, at least one of the respective database groups to a service for determining whether a resource associated with the source identifier includes a threshold value based on the amounts [of] in the data items in the at least one of the respective database groups according to a jurisdiction corresponding to the jurisdiction identifier for the at least one of the respective database groups, the threshold value based on the one or more attribute estimations and reflecting the variance:
generating a first event to send a first data element representing a move of a first value in excess of the threshold value to another jurisdiction or generating a second event to send a set of second data elements representing a move of a second value below the threshold value from one or more other jurisdictions to meet the threshold value; and
performing the first event or the second event to send the first data element to the other jurisdiction or send the set of second data elements from the one or more other jurisdictions, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong One
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) that involve evaluating for compliance based on the differing regulations that are needed to safeguard funds based on pre-defined rules and inputs.
In particular the claims recite:
aggregating, by the server, the set of data items into respective database groups based at least in part on the funding type determined event category, the source identifier, and the jurisdiction identifier;
distributing one or more database groups of the respective database groups to another server separate from the server and based on the jurisdiction identifier associated with the oner or more database groups thereby reducing a processing load on the server for remaining database groups of the respective database groups;
Reviewing the processing pipeline data and categorizing so that it is optimized for transmittal to the different financial institution databases based on predefined criteria as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data. (see App. Spec. Summary of Invention; paras. 0011-0014, 0018; see also paras, 0029-0031; 0048-0051).
Step 2A Prong Two
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and if it does, the claim is eligible under 101.
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing device or server (see App. Spec. paras. ), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which transactions are executed and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
augmenting the respective data item based on the determined event category and one or more attribute estimations corresponding to the one or more respective attributes, the augmenting adjusting the one or more attribute estimations to indicate a variance between the one or more attribute estimations and the one or more respective attributes.
aggregating, by the server, the set of data items into respective database groups based at least in part on the funding type determined event category, the source identifier, and the jurisdiction identifier;
distributing one or more database groups of the respective database groups to another server separate from the server and based on the jurisdiction identifier associated with the oner or more database groups thereby reducing a processing load on the server for remaining database groups of the respective database groups;
although the claims as recited suggest collating information and categorizing the data and saving some of the categorized data on a different database, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation/categorization process(see also App. Spec. paras.0004-0005, 0014-0018 Figs. 1-3).
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of accessing the user’s data because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are computer device which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 provide additonal details about the elements or and attributes of the predefined rules are applied to the evaluation process. For example, claims 2-5 which provide additional details about the different attributes of the type of data and rules applied to the evaluation and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Independent claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claims including claims 12 and 20 and recites:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, by a server set of data items associated with a set of wherein each respective data item includes an amount and one or more respective attributes, the one or more respective attributes comprising a merchant identifier and a jurisdiction identifier;
for each respective data item:
determining event category corresponding to the respective data item based at least in part on the one or more respective attributes; and
augmenting the respective data item based on the determined event category and one or more attribute estimations corresponding to the one or more respective attributes, the augmenting adjusting the one or more attribute estimations to indicate a variance between the one or more attribute estimations and the one or more respective attributes.
aggregating, by the server, the set of data items into respective database groups based at least in part on the funding type determined event category, the source identifier, and the jurisdiction identifier;
distributing one or more database groups of the respective database groups to another server separate from the server and based on the jurisdiction identifier associated with the oner or more database groups thereby reducing a processing load on the server for remaining database groups of the respective database groups;
transmitting, by the server, at least one of the respective database groups to a service for determining whether a resource associated with the source identifier includes a threshold value based on the amounts [of] in the data items in the at least one of the respective database groups according to a jurisdiction corresponding to the jurisdiction identifier for the at least one of the respective database groups, the threshold value based on the one or more attribute estimations and reflecting the variance:
generating a first event to send a first data element representing a move of a first value in excess of the threshold value to another jurisdiction or generating a second event to send a set of second data elements representing a move of a second value below the threshold value from one or more other jurisdictions to meet the threshold value; and
performing the first event or the second event to send the first data element to the other jurisdiction or send the set of second data elements from the one or more other jurisdictions, respectively.
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) wherein account management by a financial institution entails evaluating levels needed to safeguard funds based on pre-defined rules and inputs. This entails channeling date through processing pipelines and categorizing data through a tagging process before it is aggregated to optimize for the necessary levels for the user.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components including server (see App. specification, paras. 0019-0026).
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components to receive and transmit data and make an evaluation based on predefined instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 provide additonal details about the rules including description of the types of details, source of retrieval are applied to evaluation of safeguarded accounts.
For example, claims 2-4 provide additonal details on the augmenting step, the sources of attribute estimates and details of the respective attributes and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berneman, USP Pub. No. 20090234660 (System And Method For Funding Exercise Of Preemptive Rights.
Manfre et. al, USP Pub. No. 20030093368 (Electronic Confirmation to Credit or Debit an Account).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights