Patent Application 17953695 - ACCUMULATED RESOURCE ACCESS USING

Title: ACCUMULATED RESOURCE ACCESS USING REQUEST-TO-TRANSFER

Application Information

Invention Title: ACCUMULATED RESOURCE ACCESS USING REQUEST-TO-TRANSFER
Application Number: 17953695
Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-09-27T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-09-27T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 039000
Examiner Employee Number: 92928
Art Unit: 3694
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jan. 15, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is located in Dallas, Texas, in the central time zone (CST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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. Examiner is available for interviews, generally: M–F, 10 a.m.–4:00 p.m., CST (Dallas).
For any AIR, Applicant should expect an email response within 24-hours with an electronic interview appointment and web-based collaboration tool instructions. Examiner normally conducts interviews using video conferencing.

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 .

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Jan. 15, 2025, has been entered.

Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 3–9, 11, 13–19, and 21–24 are now pending and examined with Claims 1 and 11 in independent form.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are presently amended.
Claims 2, 10, 12, and 20 are presently cancelled
Claims 21–24 are presently added.

Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Sept. 27, 2022, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.

Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues the amended claims do not recite any exception. Specifically, “the amended claims also do not recite a mental process because the claims do not cover performance in the mind” and “the entire claim scope cannot be practically performed entirely in the human mind as various operations are tooted in computer technology,” citing the three “in response to” and last “receive” claims limitations of Independent Claims. Applicant’s Reply at 11. Applicant further argues the amended claims do not recite certain methods or organizing activity because “not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas,” as here, and “the combination of [claimed] features cannot reasonably be said to fall into” any of the subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.” Id. at 12. In support of Applicant’s assertion that the claims do not recite an exception, Applicant takes issue with Examiner’s interpretation of claim term “resource” as “money in a bank account” as unreasonable and suggests this claim term may be “computing resources, such as memory or processing cycles, bandwidth, data, or memory,” citing Spec. ¶ 43. Id. at 13.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At Step 2A Prong One, Examiner meets his initial burden that a claim is ineligible for patenting by “identif[ing] the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain[ing] why it is considered an exception” so that “applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond.” MPEP § 2106.07.
First, Examiner identified the mental process judicial exception by referring to what is recited using the language of the Rep. Claim 1 and explained how a human could perform Limitations B–F “by hand.” Final Act. 9–10. Applicant disputes the mental process exception but does otherwise specifically point out any defect in the substance of the analysis performed. Id. Therefore, Applicant’s argument on the mental process exception is conclusory. 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Likewise, Examiner identified the organizing human activity exception by referring to what is recited using the language of the Rep. Claim 1 and explained why it fell within the organizing human activity exception, relying on the plain meaning of claim term “resources” consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111. Final Act. 8–9. Applicant is correct that “money is the bank” is not explicitly recited by the disclosure. However, arguendo, Applicant’s argument on claim construction is a difference without a distinction because “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction" without affecting the “patentability analysis.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
"The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the specification."' In re Smith Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, Applicant’s Specification discloses, “User accounts may receive regularly scheduled replenishments; for instance, … a bank account may have a regular income deposit (e.g. payroll payment). In some cases, systems may exist to enable a user or administrator to receive an early allocation of resources before the scheduled replenishment, i.e. an "advance" of resources.”).” Spec. ¶ 1 (emphasis Examiner). Thus, Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed resources is “consistent with the specification.” In re Smith Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d at 1382-83; MPEP § 2111. Accordingly, as recited by the claims, “immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated [money in a bank account] amount” involves the organizing human activity exception on the face of the claims and Applicant’s argument to the contrary must fail. If Applicant desires the claimed “resources” to be “computing resources, such as memory or processing cycles, bandwidth, data, or memory,” as argued, amendments would be necessary. Examiner makes no judgment on whether said amendments would recite an exception because Examiner “identifies the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.” MPEP § 2106.07.
Applicant argues the amended claims in the alternative, recite a practical application of any exception because they improve the function of the computer, citing MPEP § 2106.05(a). Applicant’s Reply at 14–5. “[T]he recited features represent an improvement to a technology through simplifying computing requirements … [and] facilitate early access to a resource with simplified computing requirements,” citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). Id. at 16. The improvement is supported by the specification, ¶ 881 [sic], which "may greatly simplify computing requirements needed to implement early access services," and the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. “[T]he specification includes in at least paragraph [0088]1 a discussion of a technical problem related to configuring legacy systems for interoperability with an early access system. The specification also identifies technical improvements, such as the simplification of computing requirements, realized by the claim over the prior art.” Id. “The present claims … set out concrete, practical operations and are claimed explicitly and clearly.” Id. Citing CardioNet2, Applicant emphasizes that in determining whether claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the Examiner cannot ignore statements in “applicant’s specification regarding the technical solution solved by the claimed invention [and] must [ ] give[ ] [them] weight in the eligibility analysis” and must be “presumed to be true.” Id. at 16–7. “Applicant's specification identifies shortcomings in the art and describes how the present systems and methods improve upon the art. The pending Office Action provides no plausible reason to discount or doubt these statements and thus they must be given weight in the present analysis.” Id. at 17. Alternatively, or additionally, “the recited features apply the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims are more than a drafting exercise aimed at monopolizing the exception MPEP 2106.05(e)” in the third “response to” limitation of Independent Claims. Id.
Examiner would respectfully disagree.
First, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, as here, cannot be said to improve computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(a) (citation omitted).
Second, the specification teaches the claimed advance is not to a solution specifically arising in the realm of computers but rather to the problem that “small employers are [un]able to accommodate the computing burden of updating legacy systems to operate with early resource access systems.” Spec. ¶ 3. The “computing burden,” for example, is “special interfaces, such as an application programming interface (API) which other systems must be configured to use in order to make use of early resource access.” Id. ¶ 2. Thus, the “computing burden” is a financial burden, a time burden, and an effort burden on “small employers” and accordingly, not technological. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3. Examiner acknowledges, arguendo, that Spec. ¶ 881 may recite a technical problem, i.e., “configuring legacy systems for interoperability with an early access system.” However, Examiner identifies two defects with this argument: First, “configuring legacy systems” is not defined and under its plain meaning, MPEP § 2111, this term is so broad it encompasses non-technical aspects such as the those identified, supra. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. The disclosure itself Second, the claims lack any particularity for how “configuring legacy systems for interoperability with an early access system” is performed in any technological detail. As explained below, the claims are so broad so as to encompass mental processes and a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, as here, cannot be said to improve computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). The specification teaches that an “application programming interface (API) … must be configured … to make use of early resource access systems” but the claims do not recite an “API” or how to “configure it”. Id. at ¶ 2. The specification does not disparage technology, such as prior art processors, computer hardware, or GUIs but rather, the financial burden associated with “special interfaces, such as an application programming interface (API) which other systems must be configured to use in order to make use of early resource access.” Id.; Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a specification's disparagement is an indicium of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea or technological improvement at step-one).
Fourth, the computer equipment is exemplary (generic) and known in the prior art. Final Act. 17–20 (citing Spec., ¶¶ 49, 50, 60, 62–72, 74, 103, 137, 138, 49, 50, Figs. 3 & 4). The known and generic computer equipment, here, performs functions that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 138. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Accordingly, the specification does not provide sufficient details of a technological improvement that would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Alternatively, even if the specification sets forth an improvement it is done in a “conclusory manner.” Id. Assuming, arguendo, the specification sets forth an improvement that would be recognized by one of ordinary skill, the claims do not reflect the disclosed improvement. Id. Accordingly, the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Id. Any improvement is in the ineligible abstract idea itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I). Computers are invoked merely as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The abstract idea cannot provide the practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
Additionally, Applicant appears to misapprehends the abstract idea exception and additional elements identified in the Final Office Action. For clarity of the record, Representative Claim 1 is reproduced in the office action. Final Act. at 7–8. “[L]imitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements … [and] underline, and/or italics for clarity, as needed, in further describing the [abstract idea] limitations.” Id. at 6.
Applicant argues the amended claims in the alternative, recite a practical application of any exception because any exception is applied in a meaningful way and more than a drafting effort aimed to monopolize any exception, citing MPEP § 2106.06(e). Applicant’s Reply at 17.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's argument is conclusory and fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define an eligible invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims support Applicant’s assertion. Further, Applicant misstates the abstract idea from the Final Office Action. Applicant’s Reply at 17.
Applicant argues the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception because the “features or operations recited in the respective claims are considered as a combination” and “[t]he claims recite a specific sequence of operations and interactions between a computing system, a transfer rail server, and a transferee computing device to realize the claimed computer system and/or method. The combination of specific operations recited cannot be characterized as "well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field", as evidenced at least by the fact that nothing on record suggests that this combination of features was well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the field as of the priority date.” Applicant’s Reply at 18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept.” BSG, Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The “relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” Id (emphasis added). Rather, to properly evaluate the claims under Step Two of the Alice-Mayo standard, the abstract idea must be identified, set aside, and then “we ask . . . what else is there in the claims before us?” See id (quoting Mayo) (emphasis added). If that “what else” is the “application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” Id. at 1290–91.
Applicant misstates the abstract idea from the Final Office Action and does not dispute the additional elements identified by Examiner but appears to create their own in some unknown way and then argue that combination is eligible.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ ¶¶ 137–39 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 49, 50, 60, 62–72, 74, 103, 137, 138, 49, 50, Figs. 3 & 4 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure3. Spec. ¶¶ 49, 50, 60, 62–72, 74, 103, 137, 138, 49, 50, Figs. 3 & 4; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements, i.e., the computing system comprising a processor, memory coupled to the processor storing instructions, an activatable input [selectable] interface feature at a user interface on a computing device, and the early access instruction are generic computer components. Amendments to add a “transfer rail sever” to not alter this analysis. Spec., ¶¶ 137, 138, 49, 50, 62–67, Figs. 3, 4 (cited supra). Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing data, described in Limitations A–F are all normal functions of a generic computer. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]ending information over [a] network is not even arguably inventive.”).
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3–9, 11, 13–19, and 21–24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22: Claim 22 was amended to recite “wherein the refund indicator indicates that the computer system is configured to not permit a user associated with the first account to prevent the reversal transfer,” which Examiner finds confusing because of the double negative. Clarification and/or explanation is requested, which could implicate § 112(a) support. For explanation purposes, “not permit a user associated with the first account to prevent the reversal transfer” is “prevent a user associated with the first account from reversing the transaction.”

Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
first account is the recipient account of recurring funds. Spec. ¶ 90.
second account is the initiating account of recurring funds, e.g., the employer. Id.
pull-style is a request-to-transfer initiated by the recipient. Id. at ¶ 76.

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, 3–9, 11, 13–19, and 21–24 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.

Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1, 3–9, 11, 13–19, and 21–24 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1, 3–9, 21, 22, 23, and 24 recite a “computing system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 11 and 13–19 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations4 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 1. A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to:
[B] identify, based on past incoming transfer data from a transfer rail server, a second account from which a recurring transfer into a first account has previously been made;
[C] detect a predicted resource availability condition associated with a first account by determining, based on a transfer history -for the first account, that an accumulated resource amount associated with a resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur at a future time is expected to be available at the identified second account for immediate access;
[D] in response to detecting the predicted resource availability condition, provide [display] an activatable input interface feature at a user interface on a transferee computing device associated with the first account, the activable input interface feature to be used to trigger input to the computer system of an early access instruction to request immediate release of at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount;
[E] in response to activation [selection] of the activatable input interface feature, receive, from the transferee computing device, the early access instruction requesting immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated resource amount; and
[F] in response to receiving from the transferee computing device the early access instruction requesting immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated resource amount, send a pull-style request-to-transfer message to the transfer rail server and the second account, the second account identified as being associated with the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur, the request-to-transfer message requesting a transfer of the at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount;
[G] receive, from the transfer rail server, a first transfer in the requested amount.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving […] the early access instruction requesting immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated resource amount, send a pull-style request-to-transfer message to the second account, the second account identified as being associated with the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur, the [pull-style] request-to-transfer message requesting a transfer of the at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount” in Limitation F, and “receive … a first transfer in the requested amount,” in Limitation G which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because a “pull-style request-to-transfer message” from a “first account” (sender) to a “second account” (recipient) for the transfer of a “requested [accumulated resource] amount” recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–F are the required steps for “receiv[ing] … a first transfer in the requested amount” and thus, recites the same exception. Id.
Alternatively, Limitations B–F, as drafted, recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:

• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

. . .

• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B–G, recite collecting information (Limitations E (“receive” part), F (“send” part), G), analyzing information (Limitations B, C, E (“in response to” part), F (“in response to” part) and displaying certain results of the analysis (Limitation D) where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Limitation B is a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to identify a second account based on past incoming transfer data. Limitation C is a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to predict resource available such as by, for example, deposit pattern recognition (e.g., reviewing banks statements and recognizing deposits in the same amount occur on the 1st and 15th of every month). Spec, ¶ 1 (“in the case of payroll, some services exist that, in concert with a payroll system, make wages available earlier than the regular payroll processing schedule.”). Likewise, Limitation E (“in response to”) is a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” (or a decision) to select (activate) (receiving a selection via the interactive computer element). The “receiving” portion of Limitation E is a communication step that collects required information, namely, collecting the required “early access instruction to request immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated resource amount.” Limitation F (“in response to”) is a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” about whether an “early access instruction was received.” The “sending” portion of this limitations is a communication step that collects the required information to “transfer of the at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount”.
If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims recite the combination of these two abstract idea exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 1 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. A computing system comprising a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions; a transfer rail server; an activatable input [selectable] interface feature [element] at a user interface on a transferee computing device; and the early access instruction [software].
Regarding the computing system comprising a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions; a transfer rail server; an activatable input [selectable] interface feature [element] at a user interface on a transferee computing device; and the early access instruction [software], Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec., ¶¶ 137, 138 (“not limited to particular processors, computer languages computer programming conventions, data structures, or other such implementation details”); ¶ 49 (exemplary (generic) and known computer devices); ¶ 50 (exemplary (generic) and known networks); Figs. 3 & 4 and associated text ¶¶ 62–72 (exemplary (generic) and known computers, processors, modules, memory); ¶¶ 60, 74 (exemplary (generic) and known user interface); ¶¶ 100, 101, 102, Fig. 6 (exemplary (generic) and known selectable interface feature/element); ¶ 42 (“a user account may include documents or data uploaded by the user. Such documents and/or data may include, for example, any one or more of: images such as photographs, text-based documents, documents prepared according to a standardized file format, such as portable document format (PDF) documents, user preferences, digital identity data such as stored identity information or documentation, or other types of documents and/or data … The resources may, for example, be computing resources, such as memory or processor cycles. By way of further example, the resources may include stored value, such as fiat currency, which may be represented in a database.”); ¶¶ 89, 132 (“ method may include any operations described herein as being performed by the transferor device 110.”); ¶ 132 (“it is contemplated that a method may be performed by a system that includes two or more of the first database management system 130, the second database management system 140, the transferor device 110 and the transferee device 108 such that the method may include operations performed by multiple devices.”). The generic processor, here, appears to perform functions that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶¶ 137, 138. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Limitation A describes the functions of the computer system and computer system components executing instructions stored in memory to perform the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic pieces of hardware/software and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and memory, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–G describe the computer system performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Limitation D describes the function of the computing device and user interface “providing” (displaying) “as activable input interface feature to be used to trigger input to the computer system of an early access instruction to request immediate release of at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount.” Applicant’s Specification teaches the interface feature is a “button … a link, checkbox, radio button, etc. … an icon … or include a slider.” Spec. ¶¶ 103, 104. Thus, Examiner interprets the interface feature as a button in a web browser. The italicized limitation is intended future use and not positively recited. “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” MPEP § 2115. Thus, the recited function is not performed, as claimed, merely the button is displayed and, arguendo, configured to perform the recited function with programming in known “standard computer programming techniques and languages.” Spec. ¶ 138. The displaying step falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). A web browser’s back and forward button functionality is not a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(vi) (citing Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). A practical application or inventive concept cannot be furnished by an exception itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claim 11 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 11 contains no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claim 1 is also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶¶ 89, 132, 137–39 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); Spec., ¶¶ 42, 49, 50, 60, 62–72, 74, 89, 103, 132, 137, 138, 139, Figs. 3 & 4 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure5. Spec. Spec., ¶¶ 42, 49, 50, 60, 62–72, 74, 89, 103, 132, 137, 138, 139, Figs. 3 & 4; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements, i.e., the computing system comprising a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions; a transfer rail server; an activatable input [selectable] interface feature [element] at a user interface on a transferee computing device; and the early access instruction [software] are generic computer components. The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing data, described in Limitations B–G are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claim 11 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 11 contains no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claim 1 is also directed to the same abstract idea.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
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. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 3–9, 14–19, and 21–24 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. Regarding the “refund indicator,” what it represents to a human user is printed matter and nonfunctional descriptive material and does not distinguish the claims. MPEP §§ 2112.01, 2111.05. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 13 recites additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3–9, 11, 13–19, and 21–24 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.

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 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaur et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0279816) [“Gaur”] in view of Mathew et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0103980) [“Mathew”] and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,094,020) [“Lee”]

Regarding Claim 1, Gaur discloses:
A computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to:
(See at least Fig. 10, “data processing system 1000,” processor unit 1004,” “memory 1006” connected to the “processing unit 1004.” “Instructions for at least one of the operating system, applications, or programs can be located in storage devices 1016, which are in communication with processor unit 1004 through communications framework 1002.” Spec. ¶ 85.)
[…]

detect a predicted resource availability condition associated with the first account by
(See at least ¶ 6, “[A]n on-demand payroll system comprises a computer system for processing an on-demand payroll request. The computer system receives a request for an unscheduled payroll to an employee.”)

determining, based on a transfer history for the first account, that an accumulated resource amount [cash payment in between pay periods] associated with a resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur at a future time [future set payroll schedule amount] is expected to be available at the [ ] second account for immediate access;
(See at least ¶ 4, “Current payroll systems operate on a set payroll schedule, paying out compensation to employees on predetermined paydays. Employees may sometimes require cash in between payment periods for emergencies or during certain times of the year, such as holidays, and may not be able to wait until the end of the pay period.” “According to an embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for processing an on-demand payroll request. An on-demand payroll microservice receives a request for an unscheduled payroll to an employee.” ¶ 5. Thus, an on-demand payment using the “Pay Now” button reasonably suggests all but the “based on a transfer history for the first account” of this limitation. Fig. 4. The visible Pay Now button is a determination and a predicted availability because it enables the user to select “Pay Now” and not all payment systems permit the on-demand payments of Gaur. ¶ 4. Fig. 7C permits a suspension of “Andrew’s regular pay” for the “next pay period Aug 17 – Aug 23, 2019” and a payment now on “Fri, Aug 16, 2019.” Fig. 7A. Gaur discloses the “determining” step “based on a transfer history for the first account,” which is “predetermined paydays.” ¶ 4, Fig. 6.)

in response to detecting the predicted resource availability condition, [request by employee for on-demand payroll request] provide an activatable input interface feature at a user interface on a transferee computing device associated with the first account, the activatable input interface feature to be used to trigger input to the computer system of an early access instruction requesting immediate release of at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount;
(Examiner interprets “an activatable input interface feature” as a button. Spec. ¶¶ 103, 104, 138 (cited supra in § 101 rejection). Examiner interprets the italicized limitations as intended use. Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
See at least Fig. 5 displaying a selectable interface feature, “+ADD PAY” configured for inputting an early access instruction, such as “templates 208 for the unscheduled payment.” ¶ 44; see also ¶¶ 45, 46 (describing “templates 208”), Fig. 6 (“What type of Payment is Andrew receiving?”).)
in response to activation of the activatable input interface feature, receive, from the transferee computing device, the early access instruction requesting immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated resource amount;
(See at least Fig. 5, on Jun 25, 2019, Andrew requested $2,500.00 as “Pay Now” for immediate processing, which has been approved but not processed. The early access instruction via the “Bonus” type template 208.).

in response to receiving from the transferee computing device the early access instruction requesting immediate release of at least the portion of the accumulated resource amount, send a pull-style request-to-transfer message [on-demand request by Andrew Anderson] to the transfer rail server and the second account, the second account identified as being associated with the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur, the request-to-transfer message requesting a transfer of the at least a portion of the accumulated resource amount; and
(See at least ¶ 56, “in response to receiving approval of the unscheduled payment from user 204, on demand payroll microservice 202 submits the payroll calculations 226 to the second set of microservices 224 for processing of the unscheduled payment.” See also, Fig. 2, ¶ 57 (“When user 204 interacts with the control element, such as by "clicking" a button in on-demand payroll interface 206, a REST call is made to payroll input micro service 228 to initiate a payment.”). “Payroll input microservice 228 [of the second set of microservices 224] puts a [transfer] message, including the payroll information, into the queue 236.” ¶ 51. “When the unscheduled payment has been accepted, on-demand payroll interface 206. Displays a final confirmation page of the unscheduled payment.” ¶ 57. Fig. 8A discloses a payment method of “employee’s default method (ADP check will be issued).” See also, Fig. 6. Fig. 9 discloses “We have processed the [on demand] payment of $178.79 for Andrew Anderson.” $178.79 is part of the accumulated amount of a pay period. ¶ 4 (“Employees may sometimes require cash in between payment periods” A “pull-style” is a request-to-transfer initiated by the recipient. Spec. ¶ 76.) Payment rail server is computer system 106, which may be a “server computer” or “direct deposit system” ¶¶ 3, 29. The “second account” is the “employer.” ¶ 3.)

receive, from the transfer rail server, a first transfer in the requested amount.
(See at last Fig. 9 discloses “We have processed the [on demand] payment of $178.79 for Andrew Anderson.” $178.79 is part of the accumulated amount of a pay period.

Gaur does not disclose but Mathew discloses:

identify, based on past incoming transfer data from a transfer rail server [direct deposit], a second account from which a recurring transfer into a first account has previously been made;
(See at least Fig. 5, step 504, and associated text ¶ 111, “At operation 504, the server identifies, from a transaction history for an account, an actual set of transfers made to or with a first recipient, which may also be referred to as a first counterparty.” The transfer rail is the “direct deposit” system. ¶ 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined identify, based on past incoming transfer data from a transfer rail server, a second account from which a recurring transfer into a first account has previously been made as explained by Mathew, to the known invention of Gaur, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to “predict[ ] future account events based on a past transfers,” Matthew, ¶ 1, and avoid checks rejected for non-sufficient funds. Matthew, ¶ 2.

Gaur and Mathew disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Alternatively, Examiner provides Lee, which discloses:

determining, based on a transfer history for the first account, that an accumulated resource amount associated with a resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur at a future time [payday] is expected to be available at the [ ] second account for immediate access;
(See at least col. 6:15–24, “the wage access system may remit the full net pay to an employee prior to receiving corresponding funds from the employer. On payday, the wage access system remits the remaining earned wages to the employee equal to the total net pay (calculated and submitted by the employer) less any previous advances provided by the wage access system within that pay period. On payday, the employer remits the full net pay to the wage access system. Thus, the wage access system funds the user net pay by payday and also receives the user net pay from the employer on payday.” On payday, the amount is less the previous historical amounts paid (net).)

… send a pull-style request-to-transfer message to the second account], the second account identified as being associated with the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur,
(See at least Fig. 2, step 206, and associated text col. 14:55–8, “Prior to payday, a user via a user device (e.g., user device 110) may request the wage access system to transfer funds to the user account of a predetermined amount up to the available balance, at 206.” See also, Col. 6:8–14 (“The available balance funds are transferred to the user upon request 10 (e.g., the same day) by the wage access system. Funds (up to the available balance) requested and transferred to the user are remitted from the wage access system and not from an employer's funds. That is, the wage access system funds and backs transfers to the user on behalf of the employer.”) “On payday, the wage access system may remit a pre-settlement amount from the wage access account to the user account 212. The pre-settlement amount corresponds to net pay of the user less any previous advances and/or fees for a pay period.” Col. 15:19–22. Thus, the wage access system is associated with a payday resource transfer scheduled to occur on payday.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined determining, based on a transfer history for the first account, that an accumulated resource amount associated with a resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur at a future time is expected to be available at a second account for immediate access and sending a request-to-transfer message to a second account, the second account identified as being associated with the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur as explained by Lee, to the known invention of Gaur, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to “remit the full net pay to an employee prior to receiving corresponding funds from the employer. On payday, the wage access system remits the remaining earned wages to the employee equal to the total net pay (calculated and submitted by the employer) less any previous advances provided by the wage access system within that pay period. On payday, the employer remits the full net pay to the wage access system. Thus, the wage access system funds the user net pay by payday and also receives the user net pay from the employer on payday.” Lee, Col. 6:15–24. This has obvious advantages of not affecting an employer’s cash flow to accommodate on demand (or advance) payments when “emergencies” by the user are realized. Gaur, ¶ 4.

Regarding Claim 3, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 1, and instructions as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Lee discloses:

wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to, after receiving the first transfer: receive, at the first account [user account] and from the second account [wage access account], a second transfer, the second transfer for a further amount; and in response to receiving the second transfer, automatically initiate a transfer to reverse the first transfer [payment of the advance back on payday]
(The first transfer is the on-demand payment, “in between payment periods,” explained in the rejection of Claim 1. ¶ 4. The second transfer occurs on payday. “On payday, the wage access system may remit a pre-settlement amount from the wage access account to the user account 212. The pre-settlement amount corresponds to net pay of the user less any previous advances and/or fees for a pay period.” Col. 15:19–23. The re-payment of the advance on payday reverses the first transfer.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 3.)

Regarding Claim 4, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 3, and the transfer to reverse the first transfer as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Lee discloses:

wherein the transfer to reverse the first transfer is made without any interaction from any operator and without permitting an account-holder for the first account to prevent the transfer to reverse the first transfer.
(See at least col. 15:23–8, “the pre-settlement amount may be remitted by ACH the night prior to payday. Accordingly, by payday, the user has received their full net pay. On payday, the partner may remit the full net pay of a user from the partner account to the wage access account 214.” Payment of the pre-settlement amount occurs without user involvement of without permitting the user to avoid repayment of the advance.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 4.)

Regarding Claim 5, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 1 and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Lee discloses:

wherein the request-to-transfer message [request from partner to wage access system] includes an identifier [user roster data 532] for the first account [user account] to allow for verification of the request-to-transfer message.
(First, the italicized limitation is not positively recited or intended use. A statement of intended use fails to distinguish over the prior art, MPEP § 2103(I)(C), or “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” MPEP § 2115.
See at least col. 17:39–41, “The user roster data 532 may be used to create and authenticate user accounts in the wage access system 520, as well as to verify financial account data. The user roster data 532 may be received by the wage access system 520 daily (e.g., at the end of each business day). The wage access system 520 may be configured to prohibit fund transfers to users if the user roster data 532 is not updated by the partner 510.” “[U]ser verification may be performed to check that that the partner is configured to direct user wages to a financial account of the wage access system to ensure that the wage access system will receive funds from the partner to balance payments made to the user … the wage access system may provide direct deposit data for each user to the partner (e.g., partner device, payroll system) to ensure that funds are directed to an authorized direct deposit account of the wage access system. The wage access system may compare the direct deposit data and user roster data to determine if the wage access accounts listed in the direct deposit data matches the account data (e.g., last 4 digits of bank account) of the user roster data.”
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 5.)

Regarding Claim 6, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 1 and detecting a predicted resource availability condition associated with a first account includes determining the accumulated resource amount as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Lee discloses:

wherein detecting a predicted resource availability condition associated with a first account includes determining the accumulated resource amount based on:
a last date [Sept. 4, 2019] for a recurring transfer from the second account to the first account;
(See at least Col. 20, Table Five, with explanation col. 20:29–34, where the available balance is determined from Sept. 4, 2019, settled pay period.)

an amount of one or more past transfers from the second account [wage access system] to the first account [employee account]; and
(See at least col. 15:19–24, “On payday, the wage access system may remit a pre settlement amount from the wage access account to the user account 212. The pre-settlement amount corresponds to net pay of the user less any previous advances and/or fees for a pay period.”)

a determined period between the recurring transfers.
(See at least Col. 20, Table Five, with explanation col. 20:29–34, where the available balance is determined from Sept. 4, 2019, and the user has a “Weekly pay period from Monday to Sunday with a Friday payday.” Col. 19:36–7. The determined period is Sept. 6–14. Col. 19:40–1.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 6.)

Regarding Claim 7, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 6 and determining the accumulated resource amount includes determining a portion of the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur at a future time as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Lee discloses:

wherein determining the accumulated resource amount includes determining a portion of the resource transfer expected to be scheduled to occur at a future time that is attributable to current progress within the determined period.
(The determined period is Sept. 6–14. Sept. 14 is the date the payment info was submitted. Col. 19:40–1. See at least Col. 20, Table Five, with explanation col. 20:29–34, where the available balance is determined due to current progress. See also, Col. 14:51–4.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 7.)

Regarding Claim 8, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 1 and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.
Gaur does not disclose but Lee discloses:

wherein the request-to-transfer message is sent from a first financial institution system to a second financial institution system.
(See at least col. 15:19–21, “On payday, the wage access system may remit a pre-settlement amount from the wage access account to the user account 212.” The wage access account and the user account may be managed by a financial institution. Col. 8:65–col 9:1.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 8.)

Regarding Claim 11, Gaur discloses
A method comprising:
(See at least ¶ 23).
The remaining limitations of Claim 11 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Gaur, Lee, and Matthew for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.

Regarding Claims 15, 16, and 18, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The method of claim 11 as explained above.
The remaining limitations of Claims 15, 16, and 18, are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 5, 6, and 8, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Gaur, Lee, and Matthew for the same rationale presented in Claims 5, 6, and 8, respectively, supra.

Regarding Claim 13, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The method of claim 12 as explained above.
The remaining limitations of Claim 13 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 3 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Gaur, Lee, and Matthew for the same rationale presented in Claim 3, supra.

Regarding Claim 14, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The method of claim 13 as explained above.
The remaining limitations of Claim 14 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 4 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Gaur, Lee, and Matthew for the same rationale presented in Claim 4, supra.

Regarding Claim 17, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The method of claim 16 as explained above.
The remaining limitations of Claim 17 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 7 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Gaur, Lee, and Matthew for the same rationale presented in Claim 7, supra.

Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaur, Lee, and Matthew and further in view of Zubenko et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0380614) [“Zubenko”]

Regarding Claim 9, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 8 and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Zubenko discloses:

wherein the request-to-transfer message is a pre-staged transfer message that allows a transfer to be sent without input of a transfer amount [by the user].
(Applicant’s Specification explains that a “pre-staged transfer message” uses default parameters that can be overridden by alternate parameters input by the sender. Spec., ¶ 86. Thus, a pre-staged transfer message is one that uses default parameters for the transfer amount without input by the user. See at least Fig. 3C and associated text ¶ 45, “The flexible pay summary 350 may provide the user with a maximum net amount the user can receive.” “Users can edit the amount they receive in the advance using the edit button 355.” ¶ 46. After initiating an advance salary request, Fig. 3A, by a salaried worker, ¶ 42, the advance summary interface 345 calculates and displays a flexible pay summary, representing “the amount of compensation a user will receive in the advance request.” ¶ 44. If a user selects the “Get Paid 360” button, the user will be paid the calculated amount. ¶ 46. A user is not required to edit the calculated amount. Ibid. The calculated amount is a default parameter without input of the transfer amount by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined allowing a transfer to be sent without input of a transfer amount by the user, as explained by Zubenko, to the known invention of Gaur, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to permit a user to select the maximum amount of advance salary request permitted by the system for emergencies. Zubenko, ¶ 45. Gaur teaches that one reason users require cash in between payment periods is for emergencies. Gaur, ¶ 4. Maximizing the advance payment is an obvious advantage to Gaur when “emergencies” by the user are realized. Ibid.

Regarding Claim 19, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The method of claim 18 as explained above.
The remaining limitations of Claim 19 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 9 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Gaur, Lee, Matthew, and Zubenko for the same rationale presented in Claim 9, supra.

Claims 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaur, Lee, and Matthew and further in view of Ledford et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0221066) [“Ledford”].

Regarding Claim 21, Gaur, Lee, and Matthew disclose
The computing system of claim 3, and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Ledford discloses:

wherein the request-to-transfer message includes a refund indicator certifying that a reversal transfer will be automatically processed for any advanced resources after a regularly scheduled transfer is later made.
(Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use because it describes the purpose of the function being claimed. Accordingly, statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). Additionally, the italicized limitation is printed matter because it is claimed for what it communicates to a human reader and given no patentable weight because the claimed information has no functional or structural relation to the computer. An actual reversal is not claimed. MPEP § 2111.05; IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc., 100 F.4th 1395, 2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 827 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (precedential) (en banc).
See at least Fig. 5, the “request for return of funds message 502”. See also ¶ 157 “pacs.008 transaction” message; ¶ 138 “the network 130 updates the status of the payment transaction to indicate that the payment has been rejected.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined a refund indicator certifying that a reversal transfer will be automatically processed for any advanced resources after a regularly scheduled transfer is later made as explained in Ledford, to the known invention of Gaur, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to prevent overpayments.

Regarding Claim 22, Gaur, Lee, Matthew, and Ledford disclose
The computing system of claim 21, and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Ledford discloses:

(Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use because it describes the purpose of the function being claimed. Accordingly, statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). Additionally, the italicized limitation is printed matter because it is claimed for what it communicates to a human reader and given no patentable weight because the claimed information has no functional or structural relation to the computer. What a refund indicator means to a human reader is not relevant to the computer system because an actual refund is not claimed that uses the indicator. MPEP § 2111.05; IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc., 100 F.4th 1395, 2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 827 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (precedential) (en banc).
See at least Fig. 5, the “request for return of funds message 502”. See also ¶ 157 “pacs.008 transaction” message; ¶ 138 “the network 130 updates the status of the payment transaction to indicate that the payment has been rejected.”)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 21 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 22.

Regarding Claim 24, Gaur, Lee, Matthew, and Ledford disclose
The computing system of claim 21, and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but Ledford discloses:

wherein the request-to-transfer message is an ISO20022 message.
(See at least ¶ 199, “Messages employed herein also can comply with existing global standard formats (e.g., ISO 20022, ISO 8583, etc.), and have international compatibility (e.g., multi-currency).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the request-to-transfer message is an ISO20022 message as explained in Ledford, to the known invention of Gaur, in the same field of invention, with the motivation ISO20022 is an existing global standard and have international compatibility. Ledford, ¶ 199.

Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaur, Lee, and Matthew and further in view of NPL: “ISO 20022 Business Application Header Frequently Asked Questions,” 10-21-2020 [“NPL ISO 20022”]
Regarding Claim 23, Gaur, Lee, Matthew, and Ledford disclose
The computing system of claim 21, and the request-to-transfer message as explained above.

Gaur does not disclose but NPL ISO 20022 discloses:

wherein the request-to-transfer message includes a signature generated from a private key applied to the refund indicator.
(See at least ¶ 17, “The optional Signature element of the BAH can be employed to contain the digital signature of the Business Entity authorised to sign the Business Message, i.e., the ISO 20022 Business Application Header and the ISO 20022 Message.” The signature is applied to the entire message. “There is no support for signatures covering only a part of the business message.” ¶ 17. Therefore, the signature would be applied to the refund indicator. “The Signature must be structured as per the W3C XML Signatures specification,” which uses public key signatures and keyed hash authentication codes. ¶ 17. With public key signatures, any number of parties can hold the public key and verify signatures while only the parties with the private key can create signatures.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the request-to-transfer message includes a signature generated from a private key applied to the refund indicator as explained in MPL ISO 20022, to the known invention of Gaur, in the same field of invention, with the motivation “for verifying the authenticity of digital messages. A valid digital signature, where the prerequisites are satisfied, gives a recipient sufficient confidence that the message was created by a known sender (authentication) and that the message was not altered in transit (integrity).” NPL ISO 20022, ¶ 17.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 4:00.
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 M Sigmond can be reached on (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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3694

1 As-filed Spec., ¶ 87. It is believed that Applicant misidentifies the applicable paragraph.

2 CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
4 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
5 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").