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 amended claims filed on 8/7/2026, wherein:
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended;
Claims 2-13, and 15-26 remain as original; and
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment of claim 14 resolves the objections to claims 14-26 and the previous objections are withdrawn.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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a device and method for determining a financial position which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions, including contracts, marketing, sales activities, or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-26 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1 and 14, the claims recite an abstract idea of: determining a financial position. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A compute device comprising; circuitry configured to: obtain, in real time and by subscribing to a plurality of topics of an event streaming system and aggregating multiple data streams associated with the subscribed plurality of topics, financial status data indicative of balances and transactions associated with financial accounts of a customer of a financial institution; wherein the financial accounts pertain to a plurality of different financial products of the financial institution, wherein the subscribed plurality of topics comprise a first topic indicative of a balance of a financial account, a second topic indicative of customer reference data associated with the financial account, and a third topic indicative of a managed account to which the balance pertains, and wherein the multiple data streams are disseminated by the event streaming system on an ongoing basis as the transactions are processed rather than in periodic batches; determine, based on the obtained financial status data, a financial position indicative of a consolidation of the financial status data across the financial accounts pertaining to the plurality of different financial products for the customer of the financial institution; and provide a graphical user interface indicative of the financial position of the customer, the graphical user interface comprising one or more graphical representations of data associated with the financial position; and adjust the data presented in the graphical user interface as a function of user input data provided through the graphical user interface, including adjusting a time period or one or more of the plurality of different financial products represented in the presented data. Independent claim 14 recites similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 14, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite commercial or legal interactions, including contracts, marketing, sales activities, or behaviors. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “a compute device comprising circuitry, a compute device comprising a processor, an event streaming system, and a graphical user interface”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-26 recite similar limitations as independent claims 1 and 14; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the compute device, the circuitry, and a user interface”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1 and 14 only recite the additional elements of “a compute device comprising circuitry, a compute device comprising a processor, an event streaming system, and a graphical user interface”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-26, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the compute device, the circuitry, and a user interface”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-13, and 15-26 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to 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 of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent clams 1 and 14 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 2017/0278185 to Veal IV (hereinafter referred to as Veal), US 2023/0041581 to Nitsopoulos (hereinafter referred to as Nitsopoulos), US 2008/0109315 to Huang et al. (hereinafter referred to as Huang), and US 20230222575 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter referred to as Zhu). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claims 1 and 14. For independent claim 1, the prior art of Veal, Nitsopoulos, Huang, and Zhu specifically do not disclose: “obtain, in real time and by subscribing to a plurality of topics of an event streaming system and aggregating multiple data streams associated with the subscribed plurality of topics, financial status data indicative of balances and transactions associated with financial accounts of a customer of a financial institution; wherein the financial accounts pertain to a plurality of different financial products of the financial institution, wherein the subscribed plurality of topics comprise a first topic indicative of a balance of a financial account, a second topic indicative of customer reference data associated with the financial account, and a third topic indicative of a managed account to which the balance pertains, and wherein the multiple data streams are disseminated by the event streaming system on an ongoing basis as the transactions are processed rather than in periodic batches; determine, based on the obtained financial status data, a financial position”. Similar reasoning and rationale apply to the other independent claim 14. Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-26 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-26 have been fully considered by the Examiner. Applicant’s arguments and amended claims have been considered with respect to rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103 and the previous rejections are withdrawn as further detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and therefore the rejections of claims 1-26 under 35 USC 101 are maintained. The Applicant argues that under Prong 1 of Step 2A, the claims do not recite an abstract idea or a business problem because the claims are directed to technical problem of data latency, data fragmentation, and data unintelligibility. Applicant argues on pages 11 of their Remars that the amended claims can't be characterized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity such as fundamental economic principles and practices because the claims are directed to improving computer functionality and a human does not subscribe to an event streaming system, receive account data or reconfigure a graphical user interface. Applicant further that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Applicant further states on pages 17 and 18 of their remarks, that the limitations of the independent claims under Prong 2 of Step 2A are indicative of integration into a practical application because: 1) the amended claims recite a specific ingestion architecture that requires subscriptions to customer account topics that amount to a particular technical mechanism that improves computing systems by solving latency and fragmentation problems; 2) the claims recite a specific improved user interface; 3) the claims solve a technical problem in networked computer environments that overrides the conventional batch sequence; and 4) the claims produce a concrete technological improvement by utilizing vastly superior data. Applicant further argues on pages 13 and 14 of their Remarks that the amended claim limitations are indicative of an inventive concept under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG because the claimed limitations when combined together and considered as a whole provide an improvement to a technical field and are not well understood, routine, or conventional activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations do not recite any of the groupings of abstract ideas. Under Prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, the claims do fall under the abstract idea of Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, including contracts, marketing, sales activities, or behaviors, but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite commercial or legal interactions, including contracts, marketing, sales activities, or behaviors. Obtaining account data to determine and present a customer’s financial position is a commercial or legal interaction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A. Using a computer to: receive account data, determine a customer’s financial position and present the data; is nothing more than executing instructions to apply the exception to a computer. This is interpreted by the Examiner as using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “a compute device comprising circuitry, a compute device comprising a processor, an event streaming system, and a graphical user interface” are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no improvement to the claimed computer elements, or to any other technology or technical field. The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. Therefore, the claimed limitations do not meet the criteria or considerations as indicative of integration into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s further argument under Step 2B of the PEG, that the amended claimed limitations when combined together and considered as a whole provide an improvement to a technical field and are not well understood, routine, or conventional activity. As stated previously, using a computer to: receive account data, determine a customer’s financial position and present the data; is nothing more than executing instructions to apply the exception to a computer. The additional elements of “a compute device comprising circuitry, a compute device comprising a processor, an event streaming system, and a graphical user interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the claimed limitations under MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) amount to well-understood routine and conventional activities of: receiving and transmitting data over a network, the performance of repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting results of an analysis. Therefore, the rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9779392 teaches methods and systems for subscribing platform of depositing negotiable instruments.
US 12632900 teaches systems and methods for continuously updating and runtime processing of decisioning by subscribing to topics of streams of transactions.
US 12101402 teaches key rotation on a publish-subscribe system.
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 Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 10/14/2026
