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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 11/26/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 and 22-33 are currently amended.
Claims 4-7, 11-14 and 18-21 were previously cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 and 22-33 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 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 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 and 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 and 22-33 are directed to a method, a system, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…receiving an application for a secured payment instrument, wherein the application includes contact information corresponding to a set of peers associated with a user; processing the contact information through a machine learning algorithm to generate a peer recommendation corresponding to a subset of peers selectable for solicitations of a security deposit associated with the secured payment instrument, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset including sample user account information, sample contributions to security deposits and associated with a set of sample peers, and actual contributions made by the set of sample peers to the security deposits; detect selection of one or more peers from the subset of peers, wherein the selection indicates individual security deposit amounts to be requested from the one or more peers; transmitting a set of requests for the individual security deposit amounts towards the security deposit, wherein when the set of requests is received by the one or more peers, the one or more peers provide feedback with regard to the set of requests; monitoring peer responses to the set of requests, wherein the peer responses include peer feedback and different security deposit amounts corresponding to the security deposit; updating the dataset according to the peer feedback and other peer feedback corresponding to different security deposit amount requests associated with other applications for different secured payment instruments; updating the machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is updated using transaction data corresponding to usage of the secured payment instrument and the updated dataset, and wherein the updated machine learning algorithm is used to generate new peer recommendations in response to new applications for new secured payment instruments”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. processing and issuing the secured payment instrument of the security deposits from the users) but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claim method of an interface and a user device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receiving …an application for a secured payment instrument; processing… the contact information through a machine learning algorithm to generate …a peer recommendation of a security deposit…, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset…; updating… an interface to present… the peer recommendation; monitoring… user interaction to detect …selection of one or more peers; transmitting …a set of requests for the individual security deposit amounts…; monitoring …peer responses to the set of requests; updating …the dataset…; and updating… the machine learning algorithm…using transaction data…to generate …new peer recommendations … for new secured payment instruments”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the interface and the user device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receiving …an application for a secured payment instrument; processing… the contact information through a machine learning algorithm to generate …a peer recommendation of a security deposit…, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset…; updating… an interface to present… the peer recommendation; monitoring… user interaction to detect …selection of one or more peers; transmitting …a set of requests for the individual security deposit amounts…; monitoring …peer responses to the set of requests; updating …the dataset…; and updating… the machine learning algorithm…using transaction data…to generate …new peer recommendations … for new secured payment instruments”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on the same reasoning in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 22-33 are dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 22-33 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 22-33 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of a natural language processing (NLP), the interface and the one or more peer-to-peer (P2P) payment platforms included in the dependent claims 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 33 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “processing…messages…; generate…an additional peer recommendations for solicitations of the security deposit; update…the interface to present…the peer recommendation…” (claim 22, claim 26); “processing…historical transaction data corresponding to user interaction, wherein the user interaction are performed through the platform...(claim 25, claim 29, claim 30 and claim 33), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 22-33 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of a natural language processing (NLP), the interface and the one or more peer-to-peer (P2P) payment platforms included in the dependent claims 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 33 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “processing…messages…; generate…an additional peer recommendations for solicitations of the security deposit; update…the interface to present…the peer recommendation…” (claim 22, claim 26); “processing…historical transaction data corresponding to user interaction, wherein the user interaction are performed through the platform...(claim 25, claim 29, claim 30 and claim 33), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 22-33 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 and 22-33 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 and 22-33 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and the claims are not patent eligible (As the Office has explained above and see the rejections above for more details).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694