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
This action is in response to the amendment filed July 6, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The “updating of multiple capacity plans based on a single payment” is fulfilling the terms of contract a commercial and legal interaction. Commercial interactions that involve payments meet the technical definition of a contract. The exchange of goods or services for other goods or services.
Enfish was for letting a computer more efficiently retrieve data generally. The “link configuration” in this application is for applying a payment itself an abstraction. The computer is being made better at applying that payment not some general improvement to the computer itself. The applicant’s interpretation would mean that anytime a computer was executing an abstract idea it would be patentable subject matter because the computer was better at executing the abstract idea.
The link data structure applying payments is the abstract idea it is not something more.
Prior Art
The best prior art are Roberts et al. (USPG 2024/0095,823 A1) and Krishnaswamy et al. (USPG 2018/0109,424 A1) which teach using distributed ledgers to support exchanges of capacity but not a link structure defining a hierarchical relationship between the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Utility
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 1-20 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.
In sum, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 11-20) and a manufacture (claims 1-10), where the manufacture is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of:
receive, via a network, input indicating a link configuration describing a hierarchical relationship between a flexible capacity plan and a linked capacity plan;
generate a link data structure to link the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan according to the link configuration;
in response to generating the link data structure, modify an available credit of the flexible capacity plan based on parameters of the linked capacity plan including a balance of the linked capacity plan;
in response to a payment to the flexible capacity plan, identify the linked capacity plan using the link data structure; and
apply the payment to one or more of the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan according to the hierarchical relationship
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., apply the payment to one or more the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan according to the hierarchical relationship).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor” and “network” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.);. Independent claim 1 is nearly identical to independent claim 11 so the analysis for claim 11 also applies to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, and 12 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe wherein the linked capacity plan is a fixed capacity plan having a principal amount and a payoff amount, and wherein the link configuration indicates that the available credit of the flexible capacity plan is to be reduced by the principal amount or the payoff amount of the fixed capacity plan. Dependent claims 3 and 13 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe herein the linked capacity plan is a second flexible capacity plan having an available credit, and wherein the link configuration indicates that the available credit of the flexible capacity plan is to be increased by the available credit of the linked second flexible capacity plan. Dependent claims 4 and 14 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe generating the linked capacity plan based on a balance of the flexible capacity plan. Dependent claims 5 and 15 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe generating the linked capacity plan includes: selecting a portion of the balance of the flexible capacity plan to be a principal of the linked capacity plan; determining parameters of the linked capacity plan including a term, interest rate, and billing cycle of the linked capacity plan; and generating the linked capacity plan based on the principal of the linked capacity plan and the parameters of the linked capacity plan. Dependent claims 6 and 16 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe generating the linked capacity plan based on an available credit of the flexible capacity plan. Dependent claims 7 and 17 are substantially similarly and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe wherein generating the linked capacity plan includes: selecting a portion of the available credit of the flexible capacity plan to be an available credit of the linked capacity plan; determining parameters of the linked capacity plan including a term, interest rate, and billing cycle of the linked capacity plan; and generating the linked capacity plan based on the available credit of the linked capacity plan and the parameters of the linked capacity plan. Dependent claims 8 and 18 are substantially similar and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as they describe receiving user input including parameters of a second linked capacity plan and a second link configuration; generating the second linked capacity plan; and generating a second link data structure between the flexible capacity plan and the second linked capacity plan according to the second link configuration. Dependent claims 9 and 19 are substantially similar and recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11 as it describes applying the payment to the one or more of the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan according to the hierarchical relationship includes: determining a type of due amount or payment due date for each of the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan; and based on the hierarchical relationship and the type of due amount or payment due date, applying the payment to the one or more of the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan to reduce a balance of the one or more of the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan. Dependent claims 10 and 20 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea in claim 11 as it describes receiving user input including a payment configuration, wherein applying the payment to the one or more of the flexible capacity plan and the linked capacity plan includes applying the payment according to the hierarchical relationship and the payment configuration.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
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 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 from the examiner should be directed to Scott S. Trotter, whose telephone number is 571-272-7366. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, M-F.
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, Matthew Gart, can be reached on 571-272-3955.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (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).
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-7366 (Draft Communications)
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights