DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, and 21-23.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Objections
Examiner initially objected to claim 17 for changing the category of invention. Applicant did not address this issue in its response. Examiner maintains this objection.
Regarding 112 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) / 2nd paragraph as being indefinite. Applicant addressed these issues through amendment to address antecedent basis issues and an indefinite issue in "the secured card/credit builder account". In view of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws this rejection.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception by claiming a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (settling transactions) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to generate settlement data. Applicant is merely describing the advantages of using existing technology. Applicant claims the typical use of memory, analyzing only a portion of the entire data structure as opposed to the entire data structure. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with their claims. Applicant’s claims do not actually recite “in-memory” organizational structures. Applicant’s claims do not recite a special filtering algorithm or Boolean evaluation functions. These aspects are not in the claims therefore arguments that these features amount to a practical application are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant argued that they recite a combination of steps which recite something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant argued that its claims are not the generic recitation of storing and processing data. Applicant is mistaken that Examiner must provide evidence that the underlying abstract idea is well-understood, routine and conventional. Applicant is merely claiming the computer implementation of its abstract idea. While the claims go into more detail that merely storing and retrieving data; this does not arise to the level of eligible subject matter. Applicant is taking existing ways of storing and retrieving data and describes them in greater detail. This does not amount to something that is more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional. Applicant argued that since the claims do something other than what is conventional, the claims are non-conventional. This is not the level of unconventionality needed for subject matter eligibility. A different way of doing something does not mean it technologically is unconventional. It is the additional elements that must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional. Outside of the abstract idea, there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Examiner provided evidence that these are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations. Examiner has provided the proper evidence as required by Berkheimer.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 changes the category of the claim from a system claim to a method claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15; these claims are indefinite for the following reason:
These claims recite the limitation "the dataset" in the 11th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is support for a computer-organized dataset, for the sake of compact prosecution Examiner will interpret this limitation as referring to the computer-organized dataset.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16; these claims are indefinite for the following reason:
These claims recite the limitation "the transaction dataset" in the 1st line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is support for a transaction-record dataset, for the sake of compact prosecution Examiner will interpret this limitation as referring to the transaction-record dataset.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17; these claims are indefinite for the following reason:
These claims recite the limitation " the in-memory self-balancing sorted-tree dataset " in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is support for a self-balancing sorted tree data structure that is read into memory, for the sake of compact prosecution Examiner will interpret this limitation as referring to the a self-balancing sorted tree data structure.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-23 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1, 8, and 15.
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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as using funds to make payments.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1, 4-7, 21), machine (claims 8, 11-14, 22), and manufacture/product (claims 15, 18-20, 23).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
processing a funding request for a credit builder account and specifying an amount to transfer;
setting a Maximum Utilization Amount (MUA) for borrowing on a secured card;
tracking normal purchases made by a user and deducting funds from their cash account;
maintaining transaction records in a… dataset that supports ordered retrieval of transactions according to transaction attributes;
retrieving a subset of transaction records by performing an ordered-range lookup in the dataset to obtain transactions eligible for evaluation;
automatically selecting transactions for reallocation based on… evaluated transaction characteristics;
constructing a new transaction-record dataset comprising only the selected transactions;
transferring qualifying transactions to a credit builder account associated with the secured card;
transferring borrowed amount from the secured card to a credit vault;
executing a… settlement operation using stored reserve funds to satisfy outstanding balances associated with the reclassified transactions; and
generating settlement data for transmission.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium, instructions, a processor a memory device, a processing system, a multi-key index, a computer system, a computer-organized dataset, external reporting system; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
maintaining transaction records;
retrieving a subset of transaction records;
constructing a new transaction-record dataset;
transferring qualifying transactions;
transferring borrowed amount;
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing of information and do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium, instructions, a processor a memory device, a processing system, a multi-key index, a computer system, a computer-organized dataset, external reporting system; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
maintaining transaction records;
retrieving a subset of transaction records;
constructing a new transaction-record dataset;
transferring qualifying transactions;
transferring borrowed amount;
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing and do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when clamed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0038-0045], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
Thus, the dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694