DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been added. Claims 6-8 and 17-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
103
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record, the examiner submits that the applied prior art reference Caldwell at al discloses wherein the system and method utilizes a third party, such as an account aggregator to perform account authentication for a user of MBP or any other desired software package. In such as system, a MCD user desires to access a FI or other institutional or business computer system which requires credential verification. Rather than directly contacting the FI or institution core computer system, or working through the traditional but cumbersome OLBP, the MCD works through a third party computer system such as an aggregator in order to perform credential verification. The user may log into the desired app, such as a mobile banking app, on his or her MCD, and then achieve separate access to the FI's account information through an aggregator. Thus, two log-ins and two credential verifications may occur, although the software can be designed so that only one is visible to the user. In the example embodiment, once the user has logged into the MBP's mobile banking app, he or she has access to all of the financial account information within the mobile application that he or she would have access to through the user's typical experience with other forms of remote banking. The account aggregator can have user information in its own data store and to use that data store for authentication of a mobile user rather than going through an OLBP for authentication. Once the user's information has been authenticated, then from his or her MCD the user has access to all of his or her financial and banking information now available through the MBP or on any separate system. Since account aggregators and other third parties are commercial services generally available and which have data available in a common format, it is very simple, efficient and quick for the MBP to establish a data transfer connection between a MCD and an account aggregator while maintaining account security through proper credential verification without additional user interaction, as outlined in at least cited paragraphs [0024] and [0028] of the applied prior art. The applied prior art reference Putnam discloses a system and method for third party verification provided to minimize user interaction by communicating with the financial institution via an account verification system to confirm deposit and receipt of microdeposits for account authentication using at least an API (see at least paragraphs [0022-0027] to Putnam). While the aforementioned applied prior art references did not explicitly disclose the transmission of the transaction amounts by the third party system, verification of account amounts by the verification system is disclosed as inherently part of the account verification system and method as disclosed by Putnam, wherein it is disclosed as being well known and understood within the art (see at least paragraph [0003] to Putnam). Both references Caldwell and Putnam disclose the automated verification of deposits by a third party without user interaction (see at least paragraph [0018] to Putnam and at least paragraph [0024] to Caldwell).
Regarding the newly added claim limitation, the examiner submits that the applied prior art reference Silva is relied upon to disclose generating in a single consolidated data set, transaction data from a plurality of user accounts held at different financial institutions, in the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Various limitations found in claim 20 is interpreted under 112(f).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Putnam (US 2019/0188717) in view of Caldwell (US 2014/0195426), further in view of Robinson et al (US 2003/0204460) and further in view of Silva (US 2010/0250407).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory that stores code executable by the processor to:
check the user’s aggregated transaction data to identify at least one microdeposit transaction of the user account in the aggregated transaction data; and
verify the user account associated with the microdeposit, without user interaction, transaction using information based on the microdeposit transaction (see at least paragraph [0011] to Putnam “retrieving, after associating of the customer account, account data for the customer account; initiating a trial deposit to the customer account; retrieving ongoing data about the customer account directly from the financial institution, including the current balance and transactions data; and verifying, upon identifying the trial deposit, the customer account”) by matching an amount of the microdeposit in the user account of the aggregated transaction data to an amount that was deposited in the user account (see at least paragraph [0025] to Putnam et al “The verification platform may then monitor the user's financial services account by logging in on a periodic basis and verifying (260) the user's transaction history. When the microdeposit made in the prior step is identified as cleared, the verification platform may then verify (270) the account”);
Generat[ing] at least one microdeposit at the personal financial management platform and deposit[ing] the at least one microdeposit in the user’s account in response to receiving the request from the third party (see at least paragraph [0025] to Putnam et al “The verification platform may then monitor the user's financial services account by logging in on a periodic basis and verifying (260) the user's transaction history. When the microdeposit made in the prior step is identified as cleared, the verification platform may then verify (270) the account”);
using an application programming interface (“API”) for the third party (see at least paragraph “an API may be provided to provide a connection between the financial services provider and the verification platform of the present invention”).
Putnam et al does not explicitly disclose receiv[ing] a request from a third party to verify existence of a user’s account of the plurality of the user’s accounts that are held at different financial institutions;
Determine previously stored electronic credentials for the plurality of user accounts;
Log in to each of the plurality of accounts using the determined previously stored electronic credentials;
Download and aggregate, at the personal financial platform, transaction data from the plurality of user accounts.
However, Caldwell discloses systems and methods for utilizing a successful login to create or verify a user account on a different system, further comprising: receiv[ing] a request from a third party to verify a user’s account (see at least paragraph [0024]);
Determine previously stored electronic credentials for the plurality of user accounts (see at least paragraph [0020]);
Log in to each of the plurality of accounts using the determined previously stored electronic credentials (see at least paragraph [0020]);
Download and aggregate, at the personal financial platform, transaction data from the plurality of user accounts (see at least paragraphs [0033-0034]); and
send a confirmation to the third party requesting verification of the existence of the user’s account that the microdeposits are present in the user’s account via an electronic interface of the third party by automatically submitting, without user interaction, transaction information associated with the microdeposit transaction to the third party using an application programming interface (“API”) for the third party (see at least paragraphs [0024 and 0028] to Caldwell “Rather than directly contacting the FI or institution core computer system, or working through the traditional but cumbersome OLBP, the MCD works through a third party computer system such as an aggregator in order to perform credential verification… Once the user's information has been authenticated or confirmed, then from his or her MCD the user has access to all of his or her financial and banking information now available through the MBP or on any separate system.”)
Putnam and Caldwell et al, in combination, do not explicitly disclose generating a report comprising a confirmation that the user’s account is successfully verified, an indication that the microdeposit transaction was used to verify the user’s account, and an amount of the microdeposit transaction; and transmit the report to the third party using an Application Programming interface (API) for the third party ad to the user associated with the user’s account.
However, Robinson et al discloses data collection and transaction initiation using a financial messaging protocol, further comprising generating a report comprising a confirmation that the user’s account is successfully verified, an indication that the microdeposit transaction was used to verify the user’s account, and an amount of the microdeposit transaction; and transmit the report to the third party using an Application Programming interface (API) for the third party ad to the user associated with the user’s account (see at least paragraph [0007] to Robinson et al, wherein banking features allow consumers to view account information pertaining to deposit accounts, loans, or investments…create and print detailed financial reports and statements and paragraph [0019] to Robinson et al wherein Account aggregators will frequently repeat the process of accessing and extracting the consumer's financial account information on a daily basis and store the results in a local data warehouse for quick access on demand when the consumer signs on to the account aggregator's application to view his or her consolidated account information. Reporting, data mining, and other web-based client applications can also access and use the aggregated data from the data warehouse).
The aforementioned prior art of record, alone and in combination, fails to teach or suggest downloading and aggregating, in a single consolidated data set, transaction data from the plurality of user accounts held at different institutions.
However, Silva discloses systems, methods, and machine readable mediums for consolidated financial information from multiple accounts maintained with a plurality of financial institutions, further comprising downloading and aggregating, in a single consolidated data set, transaction data from the plurality of user accounts held at different institutions (see Figure 17, to Silva).
The examiner submits that the prior art reference Caldwell in combination with Putnam supports the use of user data in combination with microdeposits to verify a user account, and the disclosure of Robinson et al supports the reporting of transaction and deposit data without user interaction, in order to minimize or eliminate the need for user interaction in order to accomplish account verification. Silva further discloses wherein transaction data from a plurality of user accounts held at different institutions are consolidated for access in one interface. The examiner submits that such a modification could have been readily and easily implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art. The aforementioned limitation is therefore found to be obvious in view of the applied prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the code is executable by the processor to submit the microdeposit transaction information at a third party that requests verification of the user’s account (see at least paragraph [0018] to Putnam “verification platform 120 functions as a bridge or gateway between the user computing devices 110a . . . 110n and the financial institution web site 130 (and associated a financial institution data store 132) to facilitate account verification with minimized user involvement”).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the code is executable by the processor to submit the microdeposit transaction information by at least one of using an application programming interface of the third party and locating an input location for the microdeposit transaction information at an interface of the third party and submitting the microdeposit transaction information using the input location (see at least paragraph [0022] “In embodiments, an API may be provided to provide a connection between the financial services provider and the verification platform of the present invention”).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the input location comprises an input location of a website for the third party, the input location determined using a screen scrape of the website (see at least paragraph [0018] to Caldwell).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the code is executable by the processor to use previously stored electronic credentials for the user to access the aggregated transaction data for the user (see at least paragraph [0024] “The verification platform may then take steps to verify the user's account using the saved login credentials”).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the code is executable by the processor to generate the at least one microdeposit at a personal financial management platform and deposit the at least one microdeposit in the user account in response to a request from a third party to verify the user’s account (see at least paragraph [0024] “The verification platform may then take steps to verify the user's account using the saved login credentials”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the code is executable by the processor to verify the at least one microdeposit transaction at the personal financial management platform and send a verification confirmation to the third party (see at least paragraph [0026] “The account verification may then be transmitted (280) to the user computing device or financial services provider”).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the code is executable by the processor to verify one or more characteristics of the user’s account, the one or more characteristics comprising a status of the account, contents of the account, a capability of the account, a subscription level associated with the account, a number of posts associated with the account, a most recent post associated with the account, and a number of friends and/or followers associated with the account (see at least paragraph [0013] to Putnam “configured to initiate associating a customer account to a third-party service provider, the customer account associated with a financial institution, The data verification system may further include a server computing device configured to receive at least one account verification credential and to retrieve, after associating of the customer account, account data for the customer account directly from the financial institution”).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the code is executable by the processor to provide one or more reports associated with verification of the user’s account, the one or more reports provided to the user and/or a third-party entity requesting verification of the user’s account (see at least paragraph [0026] “The account verification may then be transmitted (280) to the user computing device or financial services provider”).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more reports indicate one or more of whether the user’s account was verified successfully, whether the user’s electronic credentials were successfully used to verify the user’s account, and whether microdeposits were used to verify the user’s account in response to failing to verify the user’s account using the user’s electronic credentials and the amounts of the microdeposits (see at least paragraph [0026] “The account verification may then be transmitted (280) to the user computing device or financial services provider”).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more reports are provided using one or more of a graphical user interface of a hardware device, an email, a text message, and a push notification (see at least paragraph [0029] to Putnam “In embodiments other computing devices may be utilized --alternatively or in concert--including tablet computer 312, mobile device 314, and similar devices” The examiner submits that the prior art reference Putnam contemplates the use of mobile devices in the implementation of the system and method as disclosed. As such, the use of text message, email or push notifications to the mobile device of a user to indicate successful account verification would have been an obvious variant of the system and method as taught by Putnam, given the state of the art at the time of filing. The aforementioned limitation is therefore found to be obvious in view of the applied prior art of record.
Claims 13-16 and 18 and 20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627