The Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in replied to the request for continued examination filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 12 and 26 were cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 13-24, 27-28 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserted in page 10 that “‘the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea’ as established in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. However, The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence, the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database), whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea.
Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In Bilski and in Alice, the specific features of the claimed method/system did not change the fact that the claims were drawn to an abstract idea. This interpretation of this abstract idea is based in light of the Alice decision and the updates in the MPEP. Hence the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
In Step 2A Prong Two, the Applicant asserted in page 13 that “[the amended claim] adds a specific limitation that is other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of resource transfers at a POS terminal and defines unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application However, per reviewing the instant amended claim, the instruction to effect the transfer of funds within a timeout period is generically applying. The present application does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application when considering under step 2A Prong Two, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: they are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f). By the same token, under step 2B Prong Two, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). The claims are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the claim has been amended, and thus, the arguments are moot over new ground(s) of rejection. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the effecting the transfer of resource to an account within a timeout period the elements taught by Aaron because the transferring of resource with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Aaron helps to transferring the points in post-transaction period (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Please refer to the 103 rejection for further details.
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 1-10, 13-24, 27-28 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1. Yes).
Claims 1-10, 13-24, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-28 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 15 recite, in part, a method of computing system for handling a transfer event, comprising: receiving an initiation request for a data transfer associated with a point-of-sale terminal, the initiation request associated with a first logical storage area; determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer instead of resources in the first logical storage area, wherein the resource external to the first logical storage area is at least one of stored in a different database to the first logical storage area and managed by a different system than the first logical storage area; in response to determining that the resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer, trigger a query message to an electronic device accessible to an entity associated with the first logical storage area, the query message prompting for an instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer, the query message indicating a plurality of transfer options including an option to use the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer and an option to use resources in the first logical storage area to complete the transfer, wherein an order of the transfer options reflects suggested options such that the option to use the external resource to complete the transfer is prioritized and displayed more prominently in response to determining that the resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer, wherein no query message is triggered and the transfer is effected using the resources in the first logical storage area in response to determining that no resource external to the first logical storage area should be used; receiving, from the electronic device, an instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer; and in response to receiving the instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer, effecting the transfer using the resource external to the first logical storage area. These limitations are directed to concepts performed in the human mind, via the use of generic computer components, such as Methods of Organizing Human Activity (transferring money between banking systems, even foreign banks). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a processor, a communications module, processor, logical storage area, an electronic device recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, determining, triggering) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception on a generic computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device : accessing an external resource to effect a data transfer associated with a POS pending the initiation request of resource transfer is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) 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 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Dependent claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite additional elements such as logical storage, point of sale terminal, resource amount, external storage amount to access and transfer resources. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as point of sale terminal) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Dependent claim(s) 7, 8, 9 when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite transferring at a schedule time, determining threshold amount, completing the transfer, using external resources, completing transfer amount, determining threshold and determining overload condition. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, first logical storage) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Dependent claim(s) 10, 24 when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite options such that the option to use the external resource to complete the transfer is displayed more prominently in response to determining that the resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a storage) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Dependent claim(s) 13, 14, 27, 28 when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a logical storage area) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Dependent claim(s) 21, 22, 23 when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer includes determining that an overload condition will occur at a future time without use of the resource external to the first logical storage area and wherein the overload condition to determine to occur based on predicted future transfers identified based on past transfers. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a storage area) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-10, 13-24, 27-28 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zermeno, (US 2016/0260081 A1) in view of Gantert (US 10,482,449 B1), in further view of Uzo, (US 2014/0052553 A1) in further view of Aaron et al. (US 10,776,809).
Regarding claims 1 and 15: Zermeno discloses: A computing system for handling a transfer event, comprising: a processor; a communications module coupled to the processor;
and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive an initiation request for a data transfer associated with a point-of- sale terminal, the initiation request associated with a first logical storage area (Zermeno, par. [0104]-[0105]) Interpretation: the request for payment which is associated with a bank account, or logical storage area per par. [047] of the specification;
determine, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer instead of resources in the first logical storage area, wherein the resource external to the first logical storage area is at least one of stored in a different database to the first logical storage area and managed by a different system than the first logical storage area; (see at least par. [0021] “. . . The processing device uses the communication device to communicate with the user, also the processing device uses the network interface to communicate with the network and other network devices, such as, but not limited to; the bank transaction processing center and its database, the bank or financial institution database, the POS database, to the cash withdrawal point database, the databases of the companies specialized on collection and payment systems.” & par. [0106]-[0107]) Interpretation: the bank server (external source) is accessed to determined account data. The resource external could be stored in different database system such as POS database, bank or financial database;
in response to determining that the resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer, trigger a query message to an electronic device accessible to an entity associated with the first logical storage area, the query message prompting for an instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer (see at least par. [0104] “. . . The user is in a store with a POS where the payment is made with a Credit, Debit or Department Store Credit card. . . .” & [0109]-[0111]) interpretation: the message prompting the user to select a resource other than the debit account (i.e., a credit account);
receive, from the electronic device, an instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer (see at least par. [0106] “The bank terminal requests authorization to the processing center of bank transactions responsible for the transaction to validate with the bank institution, card data, balance, operation amount, requesting bank, etc. [0110]-[0114]) Interpretation: resource external to first logical storage could be credit card account [external to debit account];
Zermeno does not disclose the following; however, Gantert teaches:
,the query message indicating a plurality of transfer options including an option to use the resource external to the first logical storage area to complete the transfer and an option to use resources in the first logical storage area to complete the transfer (Gantert, Col. 3 ln 35-42 & Col. 5 ln 22-41 “ . . . . The web page may present the recipient with a number of options for receiving the payment. The options may include, for example, receiving the payment by electronic gift certificate of a merchant (including mobile and/or electronic options such as via QR code, bar code, or merchant account number), a P2P account with the sender's bank or with a third party P2P service, a credit to the recipient's credit card account or deposit to the recipient's debit card account, or a deposit in the recipient's deposit account . . .”) Interpretation: the transfer options include a number of options for receiving payment. The first logical storage account, under BRI, could correspond to debit server with a debit payment option, and the “external to the first logical storage” corresponds to any of the other payment options such as credit card (server) or P2P server. The debit option is prioritized over other options;
wherein an order of the transfer options reflects suggested options such that the option to use the external resource to complete the transfer is prioritized and displayed more prominently in response to determining that the resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer (Col. 8 ln 7-16 . . . Another advantage that exemplary embodiments of the invention can provide is that the money transfer can be executed at the same or nearly the same speed as a P2P payment transaction within the same P2P system. That is, because the sender's bank has established and funded a business account at the third party P2P system, when the sender's bank chooses to execute the payment transaction, it simply uses the API to affect a transfer within the third party P2P system, from the sender's bank business account to the recipient's account . . .” & Col. 10 ln 12-18 “ If the recipient selects a merchant electronic gift certificate in step 760, then in step 765, the P2P system 100 receives from the recipient an identification of the merchant from a list of available merchants. The P2P system 100 may also be configured to allow the recipient to choose the electronic gift certificate fulfillment method (e.g., merchant code or account number, QR code, bar code). The P2P system 100 then instructs the merchant to generate an electronic gift certificate code or execute another fulfillment method of transmission and the P2P system 100 sends the merchant electronic gift certificate code or other transmission (e.g., QR code or bar code) to the recipient in step 770.”) Interpretation: the merchant can use the external source, P2P system and display the code which is generated from the external source;
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the query message indicating a plurality of transfer options using multiple options payment, debit and credit, to complete the transfer as taught by Gantert because the transferring of resource with the elements from Zermeno helps to facilitate the transfer of resources both externally and internally to another account. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Zermeno in view of Gantert does not disclose the following; however, Uzo teaches:
and in response to receiving the instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area, effect the transfer using the resource external to the first logical storage area within a timeout period (Uzo, see at least par. [0147] “. . . After the consumer confirms, then approval is sent back to the MPP, which then performs a debit of the Mobile Payment Account and then sends approval or denial message to the issuer along with the transaction data . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the effecting the transfer of resource to an account with the elements taught by Uzo because the transferring of resource with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert helps to facilitate the transfer of resources to another account. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron does not teach the following; however, Aaron teaches:
Within a timeout period (Aaron, Col. 9 ln 16-24 “After sending the interactive digital receipt (or a message for enabling access to it), if the PSS 108 then does not receive a request to use rewards points for the transaction from the user within a predetermined timeout period (step 507), the process simply ends without applying any rewards points to the transaction. Note that in some embodiments, the user may have the option to set a preference to apply any available rewards points to every transaction or to certain types of transactions, by default”);
and when no instruction to access the resource external to the first logical storage area is received within the timeout period from the electronic device, effect the transfer using the resources in the first logical storage area (Aaron, Col. 11 ln 5-14, “After sending the message, if the PSS 108 then does not receive a request to use rewards points for the payment from the user within a predetermined timeout period (step 707), the process simply continues by causing the cash transfer to be executed at step 710. This may be accomplished, for example, by debiting the payment amount from the payer's bank account and depositing the funds into the payee's bank account. In other embodiments, the user may have the option to set a preference to apply any available rewards points to every cash transfer, by default.”) even when no instruction, such as receiving a request to use reward points, the process simply continues transfer the cash.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the effecting the transfer of resource to an account within a timeout period the elements taught by Aaron because the transferring of resource with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Aaron helps to transferring the points in post-transaction period (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 16. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Aaron teaches: the computing system of claim 1. Zermeno further teaches: wherein the electronic device accessible to the entity includes one or both of the point-of-sale terminal and a device associated with the first logical storage area (Zermeno, par. [0108]) The cited portion discloses point of sale terminal and device associated with the database or server.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zermeno, (US 2016/0260081 A1), in view of Gantert (US 10,482,449 B1) in further view of Uzo, (US 2014/0052553 A1) in further view of Aaron et al. (US 10,776,809) in further view of Singh, (US 2020/0167765 A1).
Regarding 3, 17. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron teaches: The computing system of claim 1. However, Singh discloses: wherein effecting the transfer using the resource external to the first logical storage area includes sending a transfer request to an external resource system to re-allocate a first quantity of resources from an external logical storage area to another logical storage area (Singh, see at least par. [0007] “. . . The user electronically transfers (i.e., “deposits”) funds from the home account to the foreign currency account and designates (i.e., “purchases”) one or more foreign currencies in desired amounts at the exchange rate in effect at the time of designation. When the user is in the foreign country and desires cash in the foreign currency, the user proceeds to any member ATM and enters the required identification through wireless electronic communication, for example via near frequency communication (NFC) to withdraw funds from the ATM in the foreign currency. The user is able to transfer additional funds from the home account to the foreign currency account.”)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the re-allocation of a first quantity of resources from an external logical storage area to another logical storage area as taught by Singh with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 4, 18. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh teaches: The computing system of claim 3. However, Singh further teaches: wherein the another logical storage area is the first logical storage area (Singh, see at least par. [0007] “. . . The user electronically transfers (i.e., “deposits”) funds from the home account to the foreign currency account and designates (i.e., “purchases”) one or more foreign currencies in desired amounts at the exchange rate in effect at the time of designation. When the user is in the foreign country and desires cash in the foreign currency, the user proceeds to any member ATM and enters the required identification through wireless electronic communication, for example via near frequency communication (NFC) to withdraw funds from the ATM in the foreign currency. The user is able to transfer additional funds from the home account to the foreign currency account.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the re-allocation of a first quantity of resources from an external logical storage area to another logical storage area as taught by Singh with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 5, 19. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh teaches: The computing system of claim 3. However, Singh further teaches: wherein the another logical storage area is a storage area associated with a merchant that is associated with the point-of-sale terminal (see at least par. [0007] “. . . . When the user is in the foreign country and desires cash in the foreign currency, the user proceeds to any member ATM and enters the required identification through wireless electronic communication, for example via near frequency communication (NFC) to withdraw funds from the ATM in the foreign currency . . .”) ATM corresponds to POS terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the re-allocation of a first quantity of resources from an external logical storage area to another logical storage area as taught by Singh with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 6, 20. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh teaches: The computing system of claim 3. However, Singh further discloses: wherein determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer includes determining that an accumulated resource amount associated with a resource transfer scheduled to occur at a future time is available for immediate access (Singh, par. [0020]) the cited portion discloses determining a resource external to logical storage area should be accessed to complete data transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine accessing storage area to complete data transfer as taught by Singh with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 21. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh teaches: the computing system of claim 6. However, Uzo further teaches: wherein determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer further includes determining that the accumulated resource amount is of an amount sufficient to complete the transfer (Uzo, par. [0158]) The cited portion discloses a sufficient amount to complete the transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer further includes determining that the accumulated resource amount is of an amount sufficient to complete the transfer as taught by Uzo because the transferring of resource with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh helps to facilitate the transfer of resources externally to another account. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 10, 24. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron teaches: The computing system of claim 1. However, Singh teaches: wherein the query message indicates that the resource external to the first logical storage area should be used to complete the transfer (Singh, par. [0007]) home account corresponds to logical storage area.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine accessing storage area to complete data transfer as taught by Singh with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 13, 27. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron teaches: The computing system of claim 1. However, Singh discloses: wherein determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer includes determining that a borrowed resource is available to complete the transfer (Singh, see at least par. [0018] “. . . The system incorporates a mobile application (“app”) in communication with an operational server that enables a user to create a virtual personal foreign currency account in a bank or similar financial institution, participating in the international monetary exchange system, whether one having actual physical facilities or an Internet bank, with the personal foreign currency account linked to the user's personal source account, such as a bank checking account or credit card in the user's home country . . .”) credit card corresponds to a borrowed resource .
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer includes determining that a borrowed resource is available to complete the transfer as taught by Singh with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 8, 9, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zermeno, (US 2016/0260081 A1), in view of Gantert (US 10,482,449 B1) in further view of Uzo, (US 2014/0052553 A1) in further view of Aaron et al. (US 10,776,809) in further view of Singh, (US 2020/0167765 A1) in further view of Richter et al. (US 2023/0073140 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 22. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh teaches: The computing system of claim 6. However, Richter teaches: wherein determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer further includes determining that at least a threshold amount of resources will remain available for transfer at the scheduled future time if the transfer were to be completed with resources in the accumulated resource amount (Richter, par. [0119]) minimum balance threshold corresponds to minimum amount.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to complete the data transfer further includes determining that at least a threshold amount of resources will remain available for transfer at the scheduled future time if the transfer were to be completed with resources in the accumulated resource amount as taught by Richter with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Regarding claims 9, 23. Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh in further view of Richter teaches: The computing system of claim 8. However, Richter further discloses: wherein the instructions configure the processor to determine the threshold amount based on the account data (Richter, [0119]) The cited portion discloses a threshold amount based on the account data.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the processor to determine the threshold amount based on the account data as taught by Richter with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron in further view of Singh in further view of Richter helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 14, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zermeno, (US 2016/0260081 A1), in view of Gantert (US 10,482,449 B1) in further view of Uzo, (US 2014/0052553 A1) in further view of Aaron et al. (US 10,776,809) in further view of Piparsaniya et al., (US 2019/0392443 A1).
Regarding claims 14, 28, Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron teaches: The computing system of claim 1. However, Piparsaniya teaches: wherein determining, based on account data for the first logical storage area, that a resource external to the first logical storage area should be accessed to complete the data transfer includes determining that an overload condition will occur at a future time without use of the resource external to the first logical storage area and wherein the overload condition to determine to occur based on predicted future transfers identified based on past transfers (Piparsaniya, par. [0063]) overload condition corresponds to common maximum payment amount in a recurring payment transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determining that an overload condition will occur at a future time without use of the resource external to the first logical storage area and wherein the overload condition to determine to occur based on predicted future transfers identified based on past transfers as taught by Piparsaniya with the transferring of external resource to another system with the elements from Zermeno in view of Gantert in further view of Uzo in further view of Aaron helps to improve the transferring process from two different banking systems. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693