DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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’s amendments filed on 05/19/2026 do not overcome the rejection made under § 101.
Applicant argues that “although claim 1 mentions words such as “cash advance,” “financial account,” and “transactions” this does not automatically indicated that claim 1 recited “commercial interactions.” Examiner notes that while the claims don’t explicitly recite commercial interactions, the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claims in light of the specification is that receiving a cash advance request from a user and sending a response to the user’s cash advance request suggests commercial interactions.
Applicant argues that "retrieving information associated with a requester of the cash advance based at least in part on one or more inputs included in the cash advance request" and "identifying a financial account based at least in part on the information associated with the requester of the cash advance" to then analyze the "transactions of the financial account" to assign a score to the cash advance is closely related to the "technical improvement.”
The problem highlighted in the Arguments is at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. It does not become technological merely by using generic computer elements such as a processor to perform the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not improve any particular machine or allow one to perform a new function that it was not previously able to do. Instead, it merely chooses one that is properly scaled. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
The rest of the arguments are addressed in the Rejection below.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception 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 1-21, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 8 recites a system. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of sending a response to a request for funds. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
receiving a cash advance request for a cash advance;
retrieving information associated with a requester of the cash advance;
identifying a financial account based at least in part on the information associated with the requester of the cash advance information in the cash advance request;
assigning a score to the cash advance request based at least on analyzing the cash advance request, transactions of the financial account, and the information associated with the requester of the cash advance; and
sending, in response to determining that the score exceeds a threshold score, a cash advance response.
Claims 8 and 15 recite equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite a cash advance response to the cash advance request, i.e., commercial interactions.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 8 and 15 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 8 and 15 recite a processor; a memory and a non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 0105) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 additionally recite generating in response to a user activated link, data defining a graphical user interface for a cash advance application. However, the above identified features are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 also recites that the request is received through “input fields displayed within the graphical user interface displayed on a display of the client device”. However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. receiving a request) and data output (i.e. displaying a response on a user device) (see2106.05(g)). Note how the abstract idea above includes the offer and menu communicating aspects of the claimed modifying steps. They are not "additional elements" to be analyzed under this part of the framework, and merely serve to add a general link to a technological environment in which the abstract idea/commercial interaction is carried out, and instructions to apply (execute) it. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., that they merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to "apply it").
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 046 describes a network system that facilitates transactions between the cash server and sellers.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. 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 identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. 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.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
generating, in response to a user activated link, data defining a graphical user interface for a cash advance application; receiving, from a client device, a cash advance request for a cash advance, wherein one or more inputs included in the cash advance request were received through input fields displayed within the graphical user interface displayed on a display of the client device; retrieving information associated with a requester of the cash advance based at least in part on one or more inputs included in the cash advance request; identifying a financial account based at least in part on the information associated with the requester of the cash advance from the one or more inputs included in the cash advance request; assigning a score to the cash advance request based at least on analyzing the cash advance request, transactions of the financial account, and the information associated with the requester of the cash advance; and sending, to the client device and in response to determining that the score exceeds a threshold score, a cash advance response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights