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 the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s initially filed application dated 8/01/2025, claims 2-21 are currently pending and being examined in this response.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 2-21 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 2-21 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 5 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user device associated with a user, data associated with a first interaction with an interactive user interface of the user device, wherein the data associated with the first interaction indicates at least one balance threshold associated with a deposit account of the user; predicting, based on a transaction history of the user, one or more predicted transactions associated with the deposit account to predict one or more changes to an account balance of the deposit account over a duration of time; generating one or more recommendations based on the predicted one or more changes to the account balance and the at least one balance threshold, wherein the interactive user interface of the user device identifies the one or more recommendations; receiving, from the user device, an indication of a second interaction with the interactive user interface of the user device, wherein the indication corresponds to a selection of a recommendation of the one or more recommendations; and in response to receiving the indication, automatically sending a command for performing an action corresponding to the recommendation.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory, processor, POS/User device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “memory, processor, POS/User device”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic 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.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 3 additional elements – “memory, processor, POS/User device”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims 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 “memory, processor, POS/User device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “memory, processor, POS/User device” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 5, 10-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0066229 A1 to Rephlo et al. (“Rephlo”), in view of United States Patent No. 9,965,808 B1 to Kunz et al. (“Kunz”).
In regards to claims 2, 5, and 16, Rephlo discloses the following limitations:
A payment service system for managing a deposit account of a merchant, comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a point-of-sale (POS) device associated with the merchant, data associated with a first interaction with an interactive user interface of the POS device, wherein the data associated with the first interaction indicates at least one balance threshold associated with the deposit account of the merchant; (see at least Rephlo ¶ 0005, 0055, and 0059 “the account holder may specify in account holder data held with the financial institution, when the account holder would like to be alerted of a difference between an actual financial transaction and/or income and a predicted financial transaction and/or income … exceeds or falls below a predefined threshold”)
predicting, based on a transaction history of the merchant, one or more predicted transactions associated with the deposit account to predict one or more changes to an account balance of the deposit account over a duration of time; (see at least Rephlo ¶¶ 0015 and 0022 “the financial institution may then calculate a future account balance that illustrates the amount of funding available as a disposable income for the internal account based on the calculated financial transactions and income. The calculated future account balance, income, and transactions may be calculated for a certain period, such as weekly, biweekly, … bimonthly, and/or monthly”)
generating one or more recommendations based on the predicted one or more changes to the account balance and the at least one balance threshold, and wherein the interactive user interface of the POS device identifies the one or more recommendations; (see at least Rephlo ¶ 0021 “a financial institution may also prompt a user for likely missing financial transactions … the financial institution may prompt the account holder to select whether they also have a recurring cell phone payment”)
Rephlo teaches setting a balance threshold at which the account holder is alerted and teaches generating recommendations/prompts based on predicted balance changes, but does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the one or more recommendations include a recommended modification to the at least one balance threshold,
receiving, from the POS device, an indication of a second interaction with the interactive user interface of the POS device, wherein the indication corresponds to a selection of the recommended modification to the at least one balance threshold; and in response to receiving the indication, automatically sending a command for performing the recommended modification to the at least one balance threshold.
The Examiner provides Kunz to teach the following limitations:
an interactive user interface element (see at least Kunz col. 27, lines 38-57 “the cash reserve 7 can be adjusted or tuned by a user by moving a UI element, called the cash reserve handle or adjuster 405 … As the cash reserve adjuster 405 is moved, dragged, or slid, either up or down to increase or decrease the entity’s desired cash reserve 7, the balance graph 3 is readjusted, and the new cash reserve 7 number … is reflected within the cash reserve adjuster 405”)
receiving, from the POS device, an indication of a second interaction with the interactive user interface of the POS device and in response to receiving the indication, automatically sending a command for performing the recommended modification to the at least one balance threshold. (see at least Kunz col. 38, lines 45-52 “By selecting the Transfer Funds remediation option 1061, a user will be able to initiate an incoming funds transfer directly from the Cash Shortfall Pop-Up. Such incoming funds transfers may be limited to transfers from accounts administered by the host institution or host system 12”)
wherein the one or more recommendations include a recommended modification to the at least one balance threshold, wherein the indication corresponds to a selection of the recommended modification to the at least one balance threshold; (see at least Kunz col. 38, lines 40-52 “an Explanation 1059 of the Cash Shortfall (e.g., in terms of a unconfirmed balance falling below a cash reserve 7 previously set using the cash reserve UI element 405, and remediation options 1061 to mitigate or resolve the cash shortfall … By selecting the Transfer Funds remediation option 1061, a user will be able to initiate an incoming funds transfer directly from the Cash Shortfall Pop-Up”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method as taught by Rephlo the teachings of Kunz since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 10, 11, and 19, Rephlo does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations. The Examiner provides Kunz to teach the following limitations:
wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: presenting a visual representation of at least one of: the one or more predicted transactions, the predicted one or more changes to the account balance, indications of the one or more recommendations, or a cash flow associated with the deposit account. (see at least Kunz col. 32, lines 21-32 “the bar graph view 500 is an interactive interface depicting a plurality of bar graphs 512 depicting entity’s cash flow information for a corresponding plurality of time periods 5 … the bar graph 514 includes an indication of the totals … for the Cash In (‘Total In’) and Cash Out (‘Total Out’) transactions”)
wherein the visual representation includes at least a display area that illustrates the one or more predicted transactions over the duration of time, wherein the display area includes representations of at least one month, at least one day, and at least one expense or income. (see at least Kunz col. 28, lines 11-16, and col. 32, lines 21-32 “the cash reserve 7 can be set higher during certain days, weeks, or months … depicting entity’s cash flow information for a corresponding plurality of time periods 5”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method as taught by Rephlo the teachings of Kunz since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 12, 13, and 20, Rephlo does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations. The Examiner provides Kunz to teach the following limitations:
wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: identifying, based on the one or more predicted transactions, a time period wherein the account balance is predicted to be below the at least one balance threshold; and presenting a second indication of the time period through the interactive user interface of the user device. (see at least Kunz col. 38, lines 36-45 “a Cash Shortfall Pop-Up Box 1055 can be displayed when a user hovers over or clicks on a Cash Shortfall indicator 407 … the Cash Shortfall Pop-Up Box 1055 includes a Title with the unconfirmed date 1057 of the cash shortfall, an Explanation 1059 of the Cash Shortfall (e.g., in terms of a unconfirmed balance falling below a cash reserve 7”)
wherein at least one recommendation of the one or more recommendations is associated with the time period. (see at least Kunz col. 38, lines 44-45 “remediation options 1061 to mitigate or resolve the cash shortfall”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method as taught by Rephlo the teachings of Kunz since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 15, Rephlo does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations. The Examiner provides Kunz to teach the following limitations:
wherein the one or more recommendations include at least one of changing a payment date, lessening an expense, canceling a service, and requesting a loan. (see at least Kunz col. 37, lines 5-21 “when a user hovers or mouses over either a transaction date 732 or due date 733 … an interactive calendar is displayed above the date to allow the user to choose a new date … the entered date is populated in the due date field to change the bill’s due date 733”)
In regards to claim 21, Rephlo does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations. The Examiner provides Kunz to teach the following limitations:
wherein at least one recommendation of the one or more recommendations is associated with the time period. (see at least Kunz col. 38, lines 40-45 “an Explanation 1059 of the Cash Shortfall (e.g., in terms of a unconfirmed balance falling below a cash reserve 7 … and remediation options 1061 to mitigate or resolve the cash shortfall”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method as taught by Rephlo the teachings of Kunz since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rephlo in view of Kunz, and in further view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 3, 6, and 17, Rephlo discloses the following limitations:
wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: training, by the at least one processor, at least one predictive machine learning model based on training data that includes at least the transaction history of the merchant, wherein the at least one predictive machine learning model is trained to predict the one or more changes to the account balance of the deposit account over the duration of time. (see at least Rephlo ¶¶ 0025 and 0057 “the financial institution may utilize machine learning to correct and/or adjust calculations of predicted credits or debits … the financial institution may continuously improve calculations of predicted financial transactions and/or income associated with an internal account and account balance calculations”)
Rephlo teaches a machine learning processor that continuously adjusts and improves the calculations of predicted transactions, income, and account balance, and expressly identifies supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement learning, neural networks, decision trees, and regression analysis as the learning algorithms employed. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to train machine learning models using historical data. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method as taught by the Rephlo and Kunz combination the teachings of Official Notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 4, 7, and 18, Rephlo discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more predicted transactions are generated using the at least one predictive machine learning model. (see at least Rephlo ¶ 0052 “The predicted financial transactions may be calculated using machine learning, a moving average, applying trend factors, such as a seasonal trend … demographic trend factor, and/or a geographic trend factor”)
In regards to claim 8, Rephlo discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one predictive machine learning model is further trained to generate the one or more recommendations based on the predicted one or more changes to the account balance and the at least one balance threshold. (see at least Rephlo ¶ 0021 “In this manner, the financial institution may analyze, across a set of account holders, related or clustered financial transactions … the financial institution may prompt the account holder to select whether they also have a recurring cell phone payment”)
In regards to claim 9, Rephlo discloses the following limitations:
wherein the training data includes historical account data for a plurality of accounts of a plurality of users over time extracted from a data store accessed by the at least one processor. (see at least Rephlo ¶ 0021 “the financial institution may analyze, across a set of account holders, related or clustered financial transactions. For example, up analysis of accounts, a financial institution may discover that 90% of account holders that have a recurring cable payment also have a recurring cell phone payment”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights