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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information disclosure Statement(s) filed 3/14/2025; 7/17/2025; 12/09/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
*** It is noted that the Specification discloses the following regarding a “base limit value” and “excess utilization buffer for a user account.”--[0041] “As used herein, the term "base limit value" refers to a numerical value that represents an excess utilization buffer for a user account. In particular, the base limit value can include a numerical value that represents an amount that a user account is permitted to obtain or transact in excess of an amount belonging to the user account. As an example, a base limit value can include a monetary overdraft amount or a line of credit.”
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of generating an activity score for a user account…; determining a base limit value for the user account indicating an excess utilization buffer for the user account by utilizing the activity score with a base limit value model to determine the base limit value; identifying, from the base limit value model and based on the activity score, one or more user activity conditions to transition the user account from the base limit value to a subsequent base limit value within the base limit value model, wherein the subsequent base limit value indicates an additional excess utilization buffer achievable for the user account; providing, for display within a graphical user interface of a computing device corresponding to the user account, a first base limit progress element that indicates progress of one or more user activities toward fulfilling the one or more user activity conditions from the base limit value model; and upon determining partial fulfillment of the one or more user activity conditions to achieve the subsequent base limit value from the base limit value model, modifying the first base limit progress element to reflect the partial fulfillment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention allows for a generation of a dynamic base limit value user interface element determined from a base limit value model which is a fundamental economic practice (certain method of organizing human activity).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer-implemented method comprising utilizing a machine learning model, a graphical user interface of a computing device do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— computer-implemented method comprising utilizing a machine learning model, a graphical user interface of a computing device. The computer-implemented method comprising utilizing a machine learning model, a graphical user interface of a computing device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer-implemented method comprising generating an activity score for a user account utilizing an activity machine learning model; determining a base limit value for the user account, identifying one or more user activity conditions, providing for display within a graphical user interface of a computing device, a first base limit progress element; and upon determining partial fulfillment of the one or more user activity conditions, modifying the first base limit progress element…) such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Although a machine learning model is used, such use is generic. The object of the claim limitation using machine learning model is to generate an activity score for a user account, not to produce technology enabling a machine learning model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a model in the manner such models customarily operate. Simply a reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility.
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.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 10 and 16 and hence claims 10 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 10 recites a non- transitory machine-readable medium and claim 15 recites that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 using a computer-implemented method comprising utilizing a machine learning model, a graphical user interface of a computing device, amounts to no more than amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,922,491. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to generating dynamic base limit value user interface elements determined from a base limit value model.
Regarding claim 1, the language in this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491 teaches limitations omitted from claim 1 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
Regarding claim 2, the language in this claim can be found within claim 3 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 3 the language in this claim can be found within claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 4 the language in this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 5 the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 2, and 4 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 6 the language in this claim can be found within claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 7 the language in this claim can be found within claim 3 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 8 the language in this claim can be found within claim 2 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 9 the language in this claim can be found within claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
Regarding claim 10, the language in this claim can be found within claim 9 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. Claim 9 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491 teaches limitations omitted from claim 10 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
Regarding claim 11, the language in this claim can be found within claim 3 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 11 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 11 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3, as the non-transitory computer-readable in instant claim 11 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 12, the language in this claim can be found within claim 2 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 12 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 12 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 2, as the non-transitory computer-readable in instant claim 12 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 13, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 2, 4 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 13 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 13 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1, 2, 4, as the non-transitory computer-readable in instant claim 13 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 14, the language in this claim can be found within claims 6-7 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 14 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 14 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 6-7 as the non-transitory computer-readable in instant claim 14 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 15, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 15 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 15 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1-2 as the non-transitory computer-readable in instant claim 15 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 16, the language in this claim can be found within claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. Claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491 teaches limitations omitted from claim 16 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
Regarding claim 17, the language in this claim can be found within claim 3 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 17 includes a system, instant claim 17 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 3, as the system in instant claim 3 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 18, the language in this claim can be found within claim 2 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 18 includes a system, instant claim 18 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claim 2, as the system in instant claim 18 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 19, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 2, 4 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491. While instant claim 19 includes a system, instant claim 19 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1, 2, 4, as the system in instant claim 19 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 20 the language in this claim can be found within claims 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent 11,922,491.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,453. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to generating dynamic base limit value user interface elements determined from a base limit value model.
Regarding claim 1, the language in this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453 teaches limitations omitted from claim 1 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
Regarding claim 2, the language in this claim can be found within claims 2-3, 5 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 3, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 4, the language in this claim can be found within claims 6-7 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 5, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 3, 7 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 6, the language in this claim can be found within claims 6-7 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claims 7-9, the language in these claims can be found within claims 5, 3, and 9 respectively of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 10, the language in this claim can be found within claim 10 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453 teaches limitations omitted from claim 10 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Regarding claim 11, the language in this claim can be found within claims 11 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 12, the language in this claim can be found within claims 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 13, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453. While instant claim 13 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 13 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 1, 3, 7, as the non-transitory computer-readable medium in instant claim 13 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 14, the language in this claim can be found within claims 6-7 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453. While instant claim 14 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 14 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 6-7, as the non-transitory computer-readable medium in instant claim 14 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 15, the language in this claim can be found within claim 9 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453. While instant claim 15 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instant claim 15 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in patent claims 9, as the non-transitory computer-readable medium in instant claim 15 is considered an obvious variant of the method.
Regarding claim 16, the language in this claim can be found within claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453. Claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453 teaches limitations omitted from claim 16 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Regarding claim 17, the language in this claim can be found within claim 17 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 18, the language in this claim can be found within claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 19, the language in this claim can be found within claim 19 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Regarding claim 20, the language in this claim can be found within claims 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent 12,260,453.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,789,643 (Chang et al.)-cited for machine learning technique generating a behavioral module trained on individual account data and determining a linked account activity score for a user account.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694