DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to RCE filed 1/15/2026.
2. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
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, 8-13, 15-20
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 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.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a system; claims 8-14 are directed to a method, claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claim 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitations –
intercepting [by a resource management server] a request to transfer a resource from a first user account to a second user account;
subsequent to intercepting the request:
identifying [by the resource management server] at least one standard associated with the resource system;
determining [by the resource management server] a duration of time based on the at least one standard;
receiving [by the resource management server] real-time data from the [resource system], the real-time data being indicative of a number of resource requests that are scheduled to processed over a subsequent duration timeframe following the detection of the resource request;
in response to determining [by the resource management server] that the number of resource requests that are scheduled to be processed at the resource system over the subsequent timeframe exceeds a threshold, modifying, [by the resource management server] the duration of time to increase the duration of time;
in response to determining that the number of resource requests that are scheduled to be processed at the resource system over the subsequent timeframe exceeds the threshold, modifying the duration of time to increase the duration of time;
generating [by the resource management server] a delay function comprising a duration of time;
inserting [by the resource management server] a delay function into a [code base] associated with the resource system;
subsequent to inserting the delay function into the code base associated with the resource system, transmitting, [by the resource management server], the resource request to the [resource system], wherein the insertion of the delay function into the code base causes the resource system to execute the delay function before executing the resource request to delay the transfer of the resource from the first user account to the second user account for the increased duration of time
– that constitute Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – output the delay using machine learning mode based on one standard and real-time data; notify delay in transferring the resource; receive cancelation request, terminate delay function, and prevent transfer of resource; detecting additional resource transfer request from first user account to second user account, receiving real-time data indicative of workload; modifying delay function based on real-time data, and delaying the transfer for a second duration of time – that also constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, the pending claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a system comprising a processing device and memory device; resource management server; resource system; code base; proxy server; user device; non-transitory computer-readable medium; machine learning model. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – detecting a request to transfer a resource from a first user account to a second user account; identifying at least one standard associated with the resource system; receiving real-time data from the resource system, the real-time data being indicative of a number of resource requests that are scheduled to processed over a subsequent duration timeframe following the detection of the resource request; determining that the number of resource requests that are scheduled to be processed at the resource system over the subsequent timeframe exceeds a threshold; in response to determining that the number of resource requests that are scheduled to be processed at the resource system over the subsequent timeframe exceeds the threshold, modifying the duration of time to increase the duration of time; generating a delay function comprising a duration of time; and executing the delay function to delay the transfer of the resource from the first user account to the second user account via the resource system for the duration of time – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, when considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – detecting a request to transfer a resource from a first user account to a second user account; identifying at least one standard associated with the resource system; receiving real-time data from the resource system, the real-time data being indicative of a number of resource requests that are scheduled to processed over a subsequent duration timeframe following the detection of the resource request; determining that the number of resource requests that are scheduled to be processed at the resource system over the subsequent timeframe exceeds a threshold; in response to determining that the number of resource requests that are scheduled to be processed at the resource system over the subsequent timeframe exceeds the threshold, modifying the duration of time to increase the duration of time; generating a delay function comprising a duration of time; and executing the delay function to delay the transfer of the resource from the first user account to the second user account via the resource system for the duration of time – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Prior Art
Relevant Prior Art not relied upon but made of record:
CN109858912A A kind of transfer request processing method and processing device based on risk identification
US20180089674 Managing fraudulent logins at payment systems
US20230342691 Method for scoring confidence of an algorithmically proposed risk
US20060036537 Risk management in an expeditious funds-holder payor authentication and funds transfer system and methodology
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that intercepting a request using a proxy server and inserting a delay function into the code base to delay the transfer of the resource is unconventional and also improves computer functionality by computer usage by controlling when the request is carried out.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because delaying the transfer of a resource, e.g., data, funds or the like (para [0020]) is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Whether the resource is transferred in real-time at the time of the request, or, after a thirty-minute delay – has nothing to do with improving computer functionality but instead the use of computers and servers to implement the abstract idea of resource transfer. Neither of the proxy server or the resource management system has been improved by the claimed invention. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform.”). The applicant’s assertion that the claims describe an unconventional technical solution to a technical problem is unpersuasive because executing a delay in resource transfer is neither a technical problem nor a technical solution. For example, delaying payment or data transfer is a part and parcel of human activities. Simply placing such commercial operations in an automated context will generally not confer eligibility. Courts have consistently held that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.”). Here, the claimed invention merely automates human activity of delaying resource transfer which is not sufficient to overcome patent ineligibility. The claimed steps merely instruct a proxy server to intercept a resource transfer request from a user device and insert a delay function in the code base to prevent the resource from reaching the resource system which is an abstract idea – which is no more than applying the judicial exception on the additional elements as opposed improving computers or technology. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.”).
Applicant cites para [0013] of the specification to argue that the claims can improve performance (e.g., reduce latency) comparable to Enfish and Amdocs.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because any alleged reduction in latency or network congestion, a) merely reflects an effect or result, and b) does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely applies the abstract idea to aim for an aspirational result. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”), (3) (“describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished” and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”).
More importantly, the specification does not set forth any clearly defined network specifications or parameters such as speed (bandwidth), throughput or latency in order to demonstrate how much network capacity is consumed by resource transfers over a period of time, how is network congestion measure, and how the delay function purportedly “can” reduce network congestion and prevent overloading to reduce latency (para [0012]). For example, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim 1 (“a resource request by a user device, the resource request being a request to transfer a resource from a first user account to a second user account”), only one resource transfer is required to invoke the claims – a transfer that will cause no congestion or latency thereby completely obviating the need for delay function. Nor is it clear from the specification, how and why exceeding a threshold such as five hundred dollars (para [0025]) would have a meaningful effect on workload as compared to, say, a five dollar resource transfer. The specification does not explain how much resource is consumed by each resource request and whether a resource request for five hundred dollars is more or less resource intensive than other resource requests such as fifty dollars or fifty thousand dollars.
In Enfish, the invention at issue was directed at a wholly new type of logical model for a computer database: a self-referential table that allowed the computer to store many different types of data in a single table and index that data by column and row information. The disclosed technique in Enfish enabled faster searching and more effective storage of data than previous methods. The Enfish court found the claims directed to “a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table,” and explained that the claims are “not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database” that functions differently than conventional databases. In contrast, nothing in the in the claimed payment processing system, rises to the level of technical proficiency as found in Enfish. Instead, Applicant’s claims are focused on economic or other tasks such as resource transfer from one account to another for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Hence the Enfish analogy is unavailing.
In Amdocs, the Court found that the claim 1 of the ‘065 patent entails an unconventional technological solution to a technological problem of massive record flows which required massive databases. The Court noted that unlike Content Extraction and Digitech, the Amdocs ‘065 claim depends upon a specific enhancing limitation that necessarily incorporates distributed architecture that provides a technical solution to a technical problem. In contrast however, the current claims are dissimilar from Amdocs in that they do not recite any limitation(s) that is (are) similar to the enhancement limitation of Amdocs which could provide any technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s claims are directed to resource transfer between accounts. None of the claim limitations describe anything similar to enhancing fields as in Amdocs. For the above reasons, comparison with Amdocs is inapplicable.
The combination of limitations does not bring about (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited combination of abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights