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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended in the reply filed January 6, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. "Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind cannot practically perform at least the operation of: 'receiving at least one of the one or more first pieces of activity data and pre-fetching at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data to cache the at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data that is a part of the frequently accessed activity data' as recited in amended claim 1. A human cannot mentally pre-fetch data or cache data." Remarks, 10. This is not the basis of the rejection, and Applicant provides no reasons as to why, e.g., evaluating the user's activity data could not be performed mentally. Applicant's argument that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activities (Remarks, 11) are not persuasive for reasons already of record (Final Rejection mailed 10/21/2025, ¶ 4).
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "These features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims specify how and where data is stored and retrieved for use in modeling the activity data. Specifically, the claims specify that related pieces of activity data are stored (e.g., in memory, etc.) adjacent to one another." Remarks, 11. The Specification mentions that this feature is according to the "principles of spatial and temporal locality" (published Specification ¶ 0042). Spatial and temporal locality are old and universally applicable principles when dealing with memory retrieval on any device in any context. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized this as an improvement to computing given its age and widespread adoption. See Denning, The Locality Principle, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 7, July 2005, pgs. 19-24 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) referencing the "widespread adoption" of locality in data retrieval (pg. 19) and the "ubiquity of caches" which are "literally everywhere in operating systems and applications" (pg. 24).
Aside from the cache, the remainder of the limitations argued merely describe abstract data analysis (e.g., assigning weights and sorting data). "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). When these limitations are viewed together, they amount to nothing more than performing the abstract idea in a generic computerized environment. Similarly, the argued improvement that the invention "allows the data to be modified to specifically reflect the particular user and their habits associated with the activity data" (Remarks, 12) inures solely to the abstract data analysis of human activities rather than the computer itself or any other technological element.
"Moreover, claim 1 provides a technical solution in that the elements of claim 1 result in an improved manner of analyzing and modeling user data." Remarks, 12. This is unpersuasive for reasons already of record (Final Rejection mailed 10/21/2025, ¶ 6) and, to the extent that they now involve a cache memory, for the same reasons as above.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. "Applicant submits the steps of 'wherein one or more first pieces of activity data are stored adjacent to one or more second pieces of related activity data, and wherein frequently accessed activity data is cached by receiving at least one of the one or more first pieces of activity data and pre-fetching at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data to cache the at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data that is a part of the frequently accessed activity data' in amended claim 1 are additional elements which confines the claim to a particular useful application." Remarks, 13. Prefetching frequently used data with a cache memory is unquestionably conventional, as supported by Applicant's Specification (see below) and Denning. Applying these well-known techniques and principles to the abstract "activity data" recited cannot provide an inventive concept. "[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
receiving activity data of a user;
identifying a type of the activity data;
categorizing the activity data into a plurality of dimensions based on the identified type of the activity data
determining a plurality of weights to assign to the plurality of dimensions, wherein each weight is determined such that the plurality of weights reflects current behaviors and trustworthiness of the user;
determining, using the activity data, a type of one or more predictions to be made regarding the data;
selecting one or more models based on the type of the activity data and the type of the one or more predictions by: determining a desired output of the one or more models and identifying, based on the type of the activity data, the type of the one or more predictions, and one or more characteristics of the activity data and the one or more predictions, at least one of the one or more models that generates the desired output with a highest accuracy, wherein the one or more models comprise one or more of: a statistical model, or a pattern recognition model;
modeling, using the selected one or more models, the activity data utilizing one or more weights applied to the plurality of dimensions to generate a performance indicator of the user;
determining at least one action corresponding to updating the performance indicator; and
generating and providing an actionable element and at least one graphical representation of the performance indicator, wherein the actionable element is associated with the at least one action.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information regarding the performance of people including financial performance in the preferred embodiment. "As used herein, a 'performance indicator' refers to any measurement of user/entity performance, often financially or economically related (e.g., person's borrowing practices.)." Specification ¶ 0026. In the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, this fits into the subcategories of fundamental economic practices (including mitigating risk); commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Additionally, the claim limitations recite mental processes (e.g., a banker observing user activity, evaluating it, and arriving at a judgment on a performance indication and an action to take).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of performance indicators, then displaying the results; Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—analyzing records of human activity to detect suspicious behavior, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as analyzing records of human activity to detect performance indicators and actionable elements).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon, graphical user interface (GUI), machine learning model—all recited at a high level of generality).
The claims also recite "one or more first pieces of activity data are stored adjacent to one or more second pieces of related activity data, and wherein frequently accessed activity data is cached by receiving at least one of the one or more first pieces of activity data and pre-fetching at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data to cache the at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data that is a part of the frequently accessed activity data." The Specification sets forth that this feature is according to the "principle of temporal locality" (published Specification ¶ 0042). Adjacent storage, prefetching, caching, spatial locality, and temporal locality are all techniques and principles applicable in any data processing context (i.e., they are generic and not particular to Applicant's invention). Prefetching frequently accessed data via a cache memory is a universal generic technique in computing, and has no specific nexus with the remainder of the invention. See Denning, The Locality Principle, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 7, July 2005, pgs. 19-24 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) which discusses the long history of locality in data storage (see esp. pgs. 19 & 24 referencing "widespread adoption" and "ubiquity of caches" which are "literally everywhere in operating systems and applications"). When viewed in combination, this amounts to nothing more than using universally applicable generic computer tools to more efficiently analyze abstract information about the activities of people.
Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon, graphical user interface (GUI), machine learning model—see Specification ¶¶ 0046, 58, 87, 112-115 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The claims also recite "one or more first pieces of activity data are stored adjacent to one or more second pieces of related activity data, and wherein frequently accessed activity data is cached by receiving at least one of the one or more first pieces of activity data and pre-fetching at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data to cache the at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data that is a part of the frequently accessed activity data." As above, this describes using ubiquitous and conventional cache memories as a tool to lend efficiency to the abstract process. The Specification also supports the conventionality of adjacent storage, caching, and prefetching by describing them a high level of generality absent any appreciable technical detail (published Specification ¶ 0024, 42). See also Denning, cited above.
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. Claims 7 and 17 add a generic button and claims 9 and 18 add a generic computing system. These merely serve to further limit the general link to a technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (i.e., button and computing system), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0071, 106 describing these at a high level of generality and without any appreciable technical detail). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ac, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 11,341,571 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250530) in view of Rychlik, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0226888 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892), and Kahraman, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0292239 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251016).
As per claim 1, Ac teaches a system comprising:
a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors (col. 12, lines 16-29), the processing circuit configured to:
receive activity data of a user (col. 8, lines 29-35), wherein frequently accessed activity data is cached (col. 13, lines 29-31);
wherein the activity data comprises a plurality of dimensions (col. 8, lines 29-35);
identify a type of the activity data (col. 4, lines 15-39);
categorize the activity data into a plurality of dimensions based on the identified type of the activity data (col. 8, lines 29-35);
determine a plurality of weights to assign to the plurality of dimensions, wherein each weight is determined such that the plurality of weights reflects current behaviors and trustworthiness of the user (col. 2, lines 43-48; col. 5, lines 17-31);
model, using the selected one or more models, the activity data utilizing one or more weights applied to the plurality of dimensions to generate a performance indicator of the user (col. 8, lines 1-23);
determine at least one action corresponding to updating the performance indicator (col. 6, lines 1-3); and
generate and provide a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising an actionable element and at least one graphical representation of the performance indicator, wherein the actionable element is associated with the at least one action (col. 5, line 59—col. 6, line 3; col. 9, lines 18-36).
Ac does not explicitly teach one or more first pieces of activity data are stored adjacent to one or more second pieces of related activity data, and wherein frequently accessed activity data is cached by receiving at least one of the one or more first pieces of activity data and pre-fetching at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data to cache the at least one of the one or more second pieces of related activity data that is a part of the frequently accessed activity data. However, Rychlik teaches one or more first pieces of data are stored adjacent to one or more second pieces of related data, and wherein frequently accessed data is cached by receiving at least one of the one or more first pieces of data and pre-fetching at least one of the one or more second pieces of related data to cache the at least one of the one or more second pieces of related data that is a part of the frequently accessed data (¶¶ 0037-38). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Rychlik—namely, to maximize cache hits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these old and broadly-applicable data storage techniques could be leveraged in a system, such as Ac's, that retrieves and analyzes activity data (and that also employs cache memories—col. 13, lines 29-31). This would yield the predictable result of more efficient retrieval of user activity information.
Ac does not explicitly teach, the following, which is taught by Kahraman: to determine, using the activity data, a type of one or more predictions to be made regarding the data (¶¶ 0040, 62, 91); and select one or more models based on the type of the activity data and the type of the one or more predictions by: determining a desired output of the one or more models and identifying, based on the type of the activity data, the type of the one or more predictions, and one or more characteristics of the activity data and the one or more predictions, at least one of the one or more models that generates the desired output with a highest accuracy, wherein the one or more models comprise one or more of: a machine learning model, a statistical model, or a pattern recognition model; which is (¶¶ 0056, 62, 71, 91). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Kahraman—namely, to tailor model selection to particular determinations. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of financial analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claim 1 as above. Ac further teaches the performance indicator is a quantitative value representing the activity data of the user (col. 8, lines 1-23), and wherein the performance indicator further comprises at least one of a performance consistency sub-indicator or a performance duration sub-indicator (col. 2, lines 36-43; col. 6, lines 39-60).
As per claim 3, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claim 2 as above. Ac further teaches the performance consistency sub-indicator is a first measurement of the user maintaining one or more performance obligations over a future time period, and wherein the performance duration sub-indicator is a second measurement over a previous time period that the user has maintained positive performance indicator behavior or positive performance indicator history (col. 6, lines 39-60; col. 8, lines 46-61).
As per claim 5, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claim 1 as above. Ac further teaches the plurality of dimensions comprises data elements of the user's activity patterns, diversity of activity types, duration of one or more activities, changes in activity habits, and consistency in maintaining the one or more activities (col. 3, lines 58-65; col. 6, lines 39-54; col. 8, lines 28-45; see also Fig. 6), wherein each dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponding to a distinct weight of the one or more weights in generating the performance indicator (col. 5, lines 20-31; col. 8, lines 1-23).
As per claims 11-13 and 15, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches a method comprising: steps implementing the functionality of analogous claims 1-3 and 5 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
As per claim 20, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit, causes the at least one processing circuit to: perform the functionality of analogous claim 1 (Ac col. 12, lines 16-29; see also citations and obviousness rationale above).
Claims 4, 6-8, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ac, et al. in view of Rychlik, et al. and Kahraman, et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Brandt, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,943,308 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250530).
As per claims 4 and 14, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claims 1 and 11 as above. Ac further teaches the activity data further comprises timeline data comprising a plurality of user actions affecting the performance indicator, and wherein each user action of the plurality of user actions corresponds to a date of the user action, and wherein the timeline data comprises at least one identification number of the user (col. 3, lines 58-65; col. 6, lines 39-54; see also Fig. 6—loan numbers). Ac does not explicitly teach the actions correspond to a time of the user action; which is taught by Brandt (col. 34, lines 55-64). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Brandt—namely, to record more specific information on actions that affect the user's performance. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of financial analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claims 6 and 16, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claims 1 and 11 as above. Ac further teaches the actionable element comprises a plurality of actionable elements (col. 9, lines 34-36). Ac does not explicitly teach at least one of the actionable elements, upon an input by the user, initiates and executes the at least one action to update the performance indicator, wherein execution of the at least one action updates the performance indicator instantaneously or approximately in real-time; which is taught by Brandt (Figs. 15A-15B; col. 21, line 1-23). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Brandt—namely, to provide a more interactive interface. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of financial analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 7, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claim 1 as above. Ac further teaches the GUI further comprises: a description of the at least one action (col. 6, lines 25-30). Ac does not explicitly teach a button to update the performance indicator based on initiating and executing the at least one action; and a new performance indicator; which is taught by Brandt (Fig. 15B); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 6 above.
As per claim 8, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claim 1 as above. Ac does not explicitly teach the performance indicator is a real-time or near real-time economic position or account status of the user, and wherein the performance indicator is updated in response to receiving new activity data; which is taught by Brandt (col. 36-47). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Brandt—namely, so that the user has the most up-to-date information possible. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of financial analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 17, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claim 11 as above. Ac in view of Kahraman and Brandt teaches the elements of analogous claims 7-8 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ac, et al. in view of Rychlik, et al. and Kahraman, et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Jevans, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0162485 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250530).
As per claims 9 and 18, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claims 1 and 11 as above. Ac does not explicitly teach the following; which is taught by Jevans: the activity data comprises a plurality of math-based currency exchanges between the user and one or more third-parties, and wherein the performance indicator is based at least on the plurality of math-based currency exchanges (¶¶ 0046, 51), and wherein the plurality of math-based currency exchanges comprises metadata comprising key information of the user, node information corresponding with a computing system of the user, and address information corresponding with the plurality of math-based currency exchanges of the user (¶¶ 0027, 52). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Jevans—namely, to extend the performance analysis to include cryptocurrency transactions. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of financial analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ac, et al. in view of Rychlik, et al. and Kahraman, et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Bhasin, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0104843 (Reference D of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250530).
As per claims 10 and 19, Ac in view of Rychlik and Kahraman teaches claims 1 and 11 as above. Ac does not explicitly teach the at least one action corresponding to either closing a first performance product and enrolling in a second performance product or transferring the first performance product to the second performance product; which is taught by Bhasin (¶ 0069). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Bhasin—namely, to include, e.g., balance transfers in the performance calculation. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of financial analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights