DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on September 11, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite aggregating the external user account data with internal user account data associated with one or more internal user accounts maintained by the enterprise as aggregated data, and generating an adaptive graphical user interface (GUI) to display the aggregated data on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system (apparatus).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “An enterprise server computing system, comprising:
a host enterprise mobile application engine having one or more processors and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of executable instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
capturing client device authentication credentials from an authenticated client device of a user,
accessing, as a proxy for the authenticated client device using the captured client device authentication credentials, third-party enterprise mobile applications or third-party enterprise web applications,
transmitting an application programming interface (API) call to a third-party enterprise servers to extract external user account data from the third-party enterprise mobile application or the third-party enterprise web application, the API call including an identify token, the external user account data associated with one or more external user accounts maintained by one or more third-party enterprises,
aggregating the external user account data with internal user account data associated with one or more internal user accounts maintained by the enterprise as aggregated data, and
generating an adaptive graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device to display the aggregated data” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
Aggregating and displaying is a commercial or legal interaction including fulfilling agreements between the parties concerned. These steps are done to conduct inter-account transfers between accounts at the request of the user (For example, see claims 7-10). Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, a host enterprise mobile application engine having one or more processors and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of executable instructions of computer-executable program code, an authenticated client device of a user, third-party enterprise mobile applications or third-party enterprise web applications, an application programming interface (API) call, and an adaptive graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity 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: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a host enterprise mobile application engine having one or more processors and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of executable instructions of computer-executable program code, an authenticated client device of a user, third-party enterprise mobile applications or third-party enterprise web applications, an application programming interface (API) call, and an adaptive graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-5 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that one or more processors comprises generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The host enterprise mobile application engine, the non-transitory memory including a set of executable instructions of computer-executable program code, authenticated client device of a user, third-party enterprise mobile applications or third-party enterprise web applications, an application programming interface (API) call are all broadly interpreted to include generic computer components suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Similarly, the adaptive graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device is broadly interpreted to include generic software components suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts 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 functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claims 19 and 20 are also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-18, 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.
For instance, in claims 2-5, the steps “wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including assigning user-engageable widgets to the internal user account data and the external user account data”,
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including causing the adaptative GUI to display the user-engageable widgets in a random arrangement”,
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including deploying a trained ML model to classify the user-engageable widgets based on account type” and
“ wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including causing the adaptative GUI to rearrange the randomly displayed user-engageable widgets based on the assigned classification” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional elements of the user-engageable widgets, and the trained ML model are broadly interpreted to correspond to generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. These additional elements of the user-engageable widgets, and the trained ML mode, perform their traditional functions recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claim 6, the steps “wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including causing the adaptative GUI to display the user-engageable widgets based on the assigned classification” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 7-10, the steps “wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including receiving, from the authenticated client device, a user request to conduct an inter-account funds transfer between the displayed one or more internal user accounts as a source account and the displayed one or more external user accounts as a destination account”,
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including verifying that the source account has a sufficient amount of funds to cover a monetary amount associated with the inter- account funds transfer”,
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including executing the inter-account funds transfer when it is determined that the source account has a sufficient amount of funds to cover the monetary amount” and
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including dynamically updating the aggregated data in response to executing the inter-account funds transfer” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 11-12, the steps “wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including calculating a current net worth of the user based on the aggregated data” and
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including generating a second adaptive GUI for on the UI of the authenticated client device to display the calculated current net worth” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 13-15, the steps “wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including generating, by the mobile application engine, a random unique identifier associated with the authenticated client device as a client device ID”,
“wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including automatically generating an entitlement data structure associating the client device ID with client device entitlement data” and
“wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including verifying the identity of the authenticated registered client device by mapping, via the entitlement data structure, the unauthenticated registered client device to the client device ID” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 16-18, the steps “wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including assigning an entitlement rule associated with the authenticated registered client device based on the client device entitlement data that includes the access permission”,
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including automatically deploying the entitlement rule and transmitting the application programming interface (API) call” and
“wherein the set of executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including receiving, from the authenticated client device during a launching of an enterprise mobile application by the authenticated registered client device, access permission to the external user account data” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect 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. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together 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. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Steele; David Michael US Patent 10,652,264 B2 and Bingham; Sarah et al. US Pub. 2011/0282728 A1), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “transmitting an application programming interface (API) call to a third-party enterprise servers to extract external user account data from the third-party enterprise mobile application or the third-party enterprise web application, the API call including an identify token, the external user account data associated with one or more external user accounts maintained by one or more third-party enterprises, …… and generating an adaptive graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device to display the aggregated data”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1, 19 and 20 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-18 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Richter; Bernd et al. (US Pub. 2025/0124436 A1) discloses systems and methods for secure online transaction. The method includes receiving a plurality of transaction data associated with an authenticated registered user from a point of sale (POS) terminal. The plurality of transaction data is processed to identify sensitive information. The sensitive information is substituted with cryptographically generated tokens at a reader head of the POS terminal, wherein the tokens are randomly generated numbers, randomly generated character sequences, pseudorandom numbers, or a combination thereof. The cryptographically generated tokens are encrypted, via an encryption protocol, to generate encrypted tokens at the reader head of the POS terminal. The encrypted tokens are transmitted to one or more processing servers for data aggregation and payment settlement.
(b) Locke; Tyler et al. (US Pub. 2025/0069079 A1) discloses a dynamic transaction card comprising an outer surface, a sensor, and a display disposed on the outer surface. The dynamic transaction card can include an antenna and a microcontroller controlling a dynamic transaction card application. The dynamic transaction card can also include a secure payment chip having a plurality of contact points and storing a passive tag associated with a user. The passive tag can include a unique identifier and one or more log-in credentials for the user. When making a purchase, the user can be authenticated via a connection between the dynamic transaction card and a user device. The unique identifier can be used as an authentication token and the one or more log-in credentials can be verified against log-in credentials associated with the user.
6. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights