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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 02/18/2026
Claim 1 is withdrawn.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 19 are amended.
Claims 2-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 101 rejection starting on page 2 of the response.
Applicant’s step 2a prong 1 argument on pages 2-6 relies on example 39. Example 39 does not include a transaction. The current claims are centered on a round up transaction. The round up transaction at in response to a purchase of goods or services represents fundamental economic practice and therefore is abstract.
Applicant argues step 2A prong 2 on pages 6-10. Applicant argues the claims are similar to example 47 and the claims include an imaging device such as 2D/3D camera which is integral to the claimed invention. (response at 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, first the claims are not similar to example 47. Example 47 involved training an ANN to detect and remove data malicious packets from a network, and detect and remove data malicious packets from a network. The current claims instead use a tuned neural network to perform the abstract idea of a round up transaction. Furthermore, the applicant argues the imaging camera is a machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims. However the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore applicant’s step 2a prong 2 arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues step 2b starting on page 10 of the response. Applicant argues the claim recite “send, based on the verification of the person, the at least one factor being satisfied, and a tuned neural network, a round up message to a device associated with the person inquiring whether to round the purchase amount up to a round up amount higher than the purchase amount and deposit a difference amount between the purchase amount and the round up amount into an account when the device is at the purchase location; ”. Applicant respectfully submits that this particular combination of steps that applies a tuned neural network to facilitate specific network communications, the neural network having access to a repository including a plurality of databases is a unique and unconventional process.” (response 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the use of the tuned neural network and the verification of the person do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C.§101 are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments for 35 U.S.C. § 103 The arguments are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is withdrawn.
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 2 and 12 are directed to a method, and system.
Claim 12 recites “Round up savings” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 12 recites
A method for performing a round up, said method comprising:
determining that a purchase for goods or services by a person has occurred at a purchase location;
performing a feature recognition process of an image of the person taken via an imaging device;
verifying, based on the feature recognition process, the person at the purchase location;
determining a purchase amount of the purchase;
determining at least one factor is satisfied, the at least one factor including a purchase type and a purchase amount threshold;
sending, based on the verification of the person, the at least one factor being satisfied, and a tuned neural network, a round up message to a device associated with the person inquiring whether the person wants to round the purchase amount up to a round up amount higher than the purchase amount and deposit a difference amount between the purchase amount and the round up amount into an account;
displaying a plurality of action selections, the plurality of action selections including a yes button and a no button;
sending a yes message from the device to the round up processor that the person does want to round the purchase amount up to the round up amount and deposit the difference amount into the account;
receiving, based on selection of the yes button, a yes message back to round the purchase amount up to the round up amount and deposit the difference amount into the account; and
depositing the difference amount into the account by the round up processor.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components, The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice.
Dependent claims 3-11, and 13-20 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior art of record not relied upon
Burke (8,025,217) Teaches: Method to create and distribute excess funds from consumer spending transactions.
Cruttenden et al (10,521862) Teaches: Method for managing consumer transaction based investments.
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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights