The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed and entered with the RCE filed 2/20/2026. Claims 1-6, 9-17, 19 and 20-23 are pending. Claims 7-8, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 are new.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the length parameters (see below, emphasis added). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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 1-6, 9-17, 19 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The system of claim 1 and method of claim 12 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Claim 12 is representative claims 1 and 12 recite:
A method for instantaneous transaction with respect to a user deposit account at a different bank than a card issuer account for a payment vehicle used for transacting, the method comprising: establishing communication with a first bank agent of a first bank and a second bank agent of a second bank to issue messages or system triggers associated with money transfers within a … payment system, the first bank having the user deposit account of a customer established; establishing a facilitator clearing account to hold unreconciled funds of customers having payment vehicles and deposit accounts at the first bank; establishing a facilitator servicing account to hold reconciled funds of the customers having payment vehicles and deposit accounts at the first bank; facilitating real time transfer of money into and out of the user deposit account with respect to the facilitator clearing account responsive to the customer initiating a transaction; facilitating a net transfer of money between the facilitator clearing account and the facilitator servicing account based on summing all transactions in a given period; facilitating a transfer of funds between the facilitator servicing account and a facilitator account of the card issuer at a second bank based on the summing of all transactions in the given period; and … monitor a plurality of user deposit accounts simultaneously for fraud detection,.wherein the …load balancing with respect to system resources for real time fraud detection and post hoc fraud detection, and wherein… schedule future times for allocation of the … resources between the real time fraud detection and the post hoc fraud detection.
Referring to the limitations above, claim 1 recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claim 1 falls within the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the claim recite the legal or commercial interaction of establishing a facilitator clearing account to hold unreconciled funds of customers having payment vehicles and deposit accounts and monitor a plurality of user deposit accounts simultaneously for fraud detection,. Regarding fraud detection, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) also lists mitigating settlement risk as an example of a commercial or legal interaction.
Although the claims have been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claims also fall in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) lists mitigating settlement risk and processing of payments as examples of fundamental economic principles or practices. Here, transferring funds between accounts in response to a transaction while monitoring accounts for fraud is a fundamental economic practice.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a facilitation agent, first bank agent, second bank agent, messages, system triggers, machine learning module and system resources to perform the steps of the fraud detection. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that 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 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least paragraphs [0034] and [0038] of the Applicant’s specification.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 -23 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims, and are also not patent eligible. Specifically, claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 -23 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including the payment card (claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/20/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-17, 19 and 20-23 based upon lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: it is directed to legal conclusion and not to the factual evidence, provides reasons supporting a technological solution to a business problem (see 1.132 #9 on page 5, “the decision-making time that the card issuer has for deciding whether to support a transaction for presentation of a payment card at checkout is very limited. This is also something we all appreciate intuitively. The delay between card presentation and approval can be uncomfortable since it leads one to anticipated decline with the longer the delay gets.” (an improvement to an abstract idea of sales and business relations).
Mr. Whitmire has not established the problem is in making decisions based on incomplete or untimely data as a technical problem. It is a logistical or business problem in customer relations. The stated solution provided in the declaration is to use computers through machine learning to provide an improved timing which does not solve a technical problem. Please be aware that affidavits can only provide factual evidence, not legal conclusions.
Regarding applicant’s argument Dr. Whitmire determined the claims do more than “apply it,” this is directed to legal conclusions and not to the factual evidence. The same reasoning applies with respect to applicant’s arguments regarding significantly more. Applicant further evidences this by Dr. Whitmire’s point 14; however, Dr. Whitmire references the machine learning that is defined in detail as to the specification and not defined in detail in the claim limitations. Applicant argues Dr. Whitmire is “One of ordinary skill in the art” Examiner respectfully disagrees, based on the extensive resume provided, Dr. Whitmire is indicated as being an “expert” (rem 11), above ordinary skill in the art.
It is respectfully submitted that the recited machine learning module as claimed merely applies generic machine learning techniques to the known problem of fraud detection, without technical innovation in the machine learning methods themselves. Accordingly, the claimed machine learning module is therefore insufficient for patent eligibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12106280; US 11410215; US 20210374111; US 10306068; US 20180341937; US 20170169404; US 20160275474; US 20150161592; US 20140279231; and US 20090171825.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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 at 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691