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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are presented for examination. Applicant filed request for continued examination (RCE) on 05/18/2026 amending independent claims 1 and 11. In light of Applicant’s amendment and arguments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-17. Examiner has, however, established new objections for independent claims 1 and 11; and new § 101 rejection for claims 1-7 and 11-17 in the instant Office action. Further, Examiner has maintained the previous grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 1-7 and 11-17 in the instant Office action.
Examiner’s Remarks
§ 101 Rejection:
Applicant argues in pages 8-11 of Applicant’s Remarks:
[A]s indicated by the SMED of Dr. David Whitmire, the claimed invention integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, Dr. Whitmire determined that the claims "do more than merely instruct a computer to "apply" an abstract concept. Instead, the claimed architecture changes system behavior by conditionally restricting invocation of computationally intensive matching and machine-learning operations unless descriptor-qualified transaction conditions are first satisfied." (see SMED point 7).
The second consideration is "whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process." In this regard, Dr. Whitmire further opines that "it is my opinion that the claims do not use computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. In this regard, the processing circuitry is further discussed with specificity in terms of how it is utilized in ways that clearly extend beyond merely applying a computer as a tool but instead configuring the computer in a particular way to solve a problem that extends beyond generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process.
Dr. Whitmire also opines that the "unique combination of tool and concept embodied by that which is claimed in the '637 application defines a new functionality in a specifically defined and structured computing platform that is not fairly construed as a generic computing technology. Not only is the ultimate function (i.e., creating a more efficient ACH transfer process with a matching algorithm that is updated by machine learning using reasons for success and failure of the matching algorithm) unique, but the collection of steps used to accomplish the ultimate function is also unique. As such, it is my opinion that the claims of the '637 application integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application." (see SMED point 11). In this regard, both the steps and the combination of steps are unique. In reference to the steps, Dr. Whitmire opines that "The step of selectively employing the algorithm is unique due to its quick filtering process at the initiation of a transaction, combined with the fact that this step only allows transactions that are highly likely to be applicable to be applied to the transaction itself." (see SMED point 12). Thus, Dr. Whitmire's expert testimony establishes evidence that independent claims 1 and 11 recite a practical application under Step 2A; Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis.
Applicant also respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. In this regard, Dr. Whitmire noted that "the processing circuitry is defined with specificity in relation to how it is executed in its operating environment to provide the use of the same virtual card in multiple different transactions." (see SMED point 12). Dr. Whitmire further explains that the "processing circuitry is also specifically defined in relation to how it is utilized in ways that are not conventional." (see SMED point 12). Thus, Dr. Whitmire's expert testimony establishes evidence that independent claims 1 and 12 define additional details that amount to significantly more than any abstract idea and should therefore be considered patent eligible on that basis as well under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Examiner has carefully considered the arguments by Dr. Whitmire, but respectfully disagrees. As before, newly amended features do not render instant independent claims 1 and 11 patent eligible because instant claims are still recited in high level of generality lacking details and specifics for how the problem in technology is solved by technological means. The issue is that the recitation of specifics and details of technological solution is lacking in claims. For example, instant independent claims 1 and 11 do not recite how the machine learning model is built (i.e., what the model is built for), how the model is trained (i.e., what specific data is used in training the model), and how the model evolves (i.e., how does the model receive new data continuously in order to improve the model). As such, the instant claims are not patent eligible under § 101. Again, Applicant is invited to set up an interview with Examiner to further discuss this issue.
§ 103 Rejection:
Applicant argues in pages 11-12 of Applicant’s Remarks:
As noted above, independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite, inter alia, selectively employing, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions, and that the selectively employing the matching algorithm comprises only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions. The Office Action states that Smith discloses employing a matching algorithm. However, Smith does not selectively employ the matching algorithm, let alone selectively employ the matching algorithm based on the entity of the target transaction being associated with a candidate transaction, as recited in amended claims 1 and 11. This process transforms the ACH transfer process by creating a more efficient system, since the matching algorithm is only employed when certain conditions are met, unlike the matching algorithm in Smith. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claims 1 and 11 are patentable over Smith.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Smith (US 2015/0081553 A1) specifically teaches (emphasis by Examiner):
[0049] The financial account routing number and the account number for the consumer 30 in the ACH transaction detail record is also included in the transaction data file(s) thereby allowing the third-party payment processor to match up the ACH transaction detail record with the corresponding transaction data file(s) associated therewith. This matching process is used for a single ACH transaction detail record included in an ACH file or a plurality of ACH transaction detail records included in an ACH file.
Here, Smith teaches “allowing the third-party payment processor to match up the ACH transaction detail record with the corresponding transaction data file(s)” where the process is “used for a single ACH transaction detail record included in an ACH file” and the matching is based on “the financial account routing number and the account number for the consumer . . . is included in the transaction data file(s).” Thus, Smith discloses selectively determined, by a matching algorithm of a third party processor, a match with a specific file from multiple files based on identifying the consumer. Therefore, Smith teaches:
Selectively employing, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions, wherein the selectively employing the matching algorithm comprises only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1: A method for facilitating early capture of automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:
. . .
selectively employing, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions; and
responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined period of time, considering the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation,
wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logs each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log,
wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logs each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log,
wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent applies machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively,
wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified, and
wherein the selectively employing the matching algorithm comprises only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions.
It appears that most of the “wherein” clauses should be independent steps because “wherein” clauses are used to further explain the independent step and should therefore follow the independent step. Here, however, all but the last “wherein” clause do not further elaborate the preceding independent step and when comparing claim 1 with claim 11, all but the last “wherein” clause should be independent steps. The only “wherein” clause that does further explain an independent step is the newly amended “wherein” clause that further elaborates the step of “selectively employing” and should follow that step. Further, similarly to other steps, there should be “by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent” in the “responsive to determining” step, and “by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent” should be separated inside of the limitation using commas (“,”). Applicant could amend claim 1 to recite:
Claim 1: A method for facilitating early capture of automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:
. . .
selectively employing, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions, wherein the selectively employing the matching algorithm comprises only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions; [[and]]
responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined period of time, considering the target transaction to be captured and releasing, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, the lending limitation;[[,]]
logging, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log;[[,]]
logging, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log;[[,]] and
applying, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 11: An apparatus for facilitating early capture of automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the apparatus comprising
processing circuitry configured to:
. . .
selectively employ a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions;
responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined period of time, consider the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation,
logging each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log,
logging each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log, and
applying machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified, and wherein the matching algorithm is selectively employed by only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “the apparatus comprising” to separate system hardware “processing circuitry” from the pre-amble. Further, it appears that the newly amended “wherein” clause that further elaborates the step of “selectively employ” should follow “selectively employ” step because “wherein” clauses are used to further explain the preceding independent step. Still further, similarly to other steps, there should be a semi-colon (“;”) after “responsive to determining,” “logging each failure to determine,” and “logging each success in determining” steps. Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
Claim 11: An apparatus for facilitating early capture of automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
. . .
selectively employ a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions, wherein the matching algorithm is selectively employed by only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions;
responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined period of time, consider the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation;[[,]]
logging each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log;[[,]]
logging each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log;[[,]] and
applying machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified.
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 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-7 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 11-17 is an apparatus, which is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-7 and 11-17 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-7 and 11-17, however, recite an abstract idea of facilitating early capture of automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions. The creation of facilitating early capture of automated clearing house (ACH) transfers associated with transactions, as recited in the independent claims 1 and 11 belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1 and 11, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“initiating a lending limitation on financing available to the customer based on an amount of the target transaction until the target transaction is captured or a predetermined period of time has passed without receiving a notice of insufficient funds from a customer bank having a bank account of the customer from which an ACH transfer is requested by the ACH file” (claims 1 and 11);
“selectively employing a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions, wherein the selectively employing the matching algorithm comprises only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions” (claims 1 and 11);
“responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined period of time, considering the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation” (claims 1 and 11);
“logging each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log” (claims 1 and 11);
“logging each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log” (claims 1 and 11); and
“applying machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified” (claims 1 and 11).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1 and 11 recite additional element:
“processing circuitry of a facilitation agent” (claims 1 and 11).
This additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following additional limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“providing a descriptor into an ACH file associated with a fund transfer between a customer and a merchant for a target transaction financed by the facilitation agent” (claims 1 and 11); and
“receiving bank account transaction data associated with candidate transactions from the bank account of the customer” (claims 1 and 11).
These additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations).
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: The limitations in independent claims 1 and 11, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea are not patent eligible either alone or in combination. The additional element/limitations in independent claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible either alone or in combination. Further, the combination of these additional element/limitations and the limitations which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element/limitations and the limitations which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional element/limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 (see above under Step 2A – Prong 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The Applicant’s Specification describes the recited additional element in following terms:
[0032] In some embodiments, the payments platform 50 may be a technical device, component or module affiliated with the lender or an agent of the lender. Thus, the payments platform 50 may operate under control of the facilitator or agent of the facilitator to be a technical means by which to carry out activities under direction of the facilitator or employees thereof. The facilitator may, in some cases, be a facilitator of a transaction between the user (or customer) and a merchant, where such facilitation includes the advancement of funds, provision of a loan or similar to the customer. The facilitator may, in effect, act via the operation of the payments platform 50 via configuration of various decision making components thereof.
[0046] FIG. 2 shows certain elements of an apparatus for provision of the payments platform50 or other processing circuitry according to an example embodiment. The apparatus of FIG. 2 may be employed, for example, as the payments platform50 itself (and/or the capturing agent60 and the request formatter80) operating at, for example, a network device, server, proxy, or the like (e.g., the application server42 or client20 of FIG. 1)). Alternatively, embodiments may be employed on a combination of devices (e.g., in distributed fashion on a device (e.g., a computer) or a variety of other devices/computers that are networked together). Accordingly, some embodiments of the present invention may be embodied wholly at a single device (e.g., the application server42 or the client20) or by devices in a client/server relationship (e.g., the application server42 and one or more clients20). Thus, although FIG. 2 illustrates the payments platform50 as including the components shown, it should be appreciated that some of the components may be distributed and not centrally located in some cases. Furthermore, it should be noted that the devices or elements described below may not be mandatory and thus some may be omitted or replaced with others in certain embodiments.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the limitations of “providing” and “receiving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “providing” and “receiving” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 “provide” and “receive” data over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized “providing” and “receiving” information over a network functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional element/limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional element/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional element/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that this combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-7 depend on independent claim 1; and dependent claims 12-17 depend on independent claim 11. The elements in dependent claims 2-7 and 12-17, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“providing the descriptor into the ACH file comprises providing the descriptor into a batch header of the ACH file” (claims 2 and 12: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the batch header comprises a first portion including an entity identifier, and a second portion including an encoded string associated with the ACH file, and wherein providing the descriptor into the batch header of the ACH file comprises providing the descriptor as a predetermined formatting of the encoded string” (claims 3 and 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “providing” step that is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the predetermined formatting identifies a date of the ACH transfer” (claims 4 and 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the matching algorithm determines a match responsive to: determining a first correspondence between the entity identifier of the one of the candidate transactions and an identity of the facilitation agent, and applying a transaction specific correspondence check based on whether the descriptor is available in association with the target transaction” (claims 5 and 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the transaction specific correspondence check comprises: responsive to the descriptor being available, determining a second correspondence in amount of the target transaction and the one of the candidate transactions, determining a third correspondence between date of the target transaction and the date of the ACH transfer, determining a fourth correspondence between a user identifier associated with the target transaction and an identity of the customer, and determining the match responsive to the first, second, third and fourth correspondences” (claims 6 and 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“the transaction specific correspondence check comprises: responsive to the descriptor being available, determining a second correspondence in amount of the target transaction and the one of the candidate transactions, determining a third correspondence between a user identifier associated with the target transaction and an identity of the customer, and determining the match responsive to the first, second, and third correspondences” (claims 7 and 17: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-7 and 12-17 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 11 and are rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
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 § 102 of this title, 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 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2015/0081553 A1) in view of Document_815 (JP 2004537815 A), and further in view of Jupudi (US 2022/0321422 A1).
As to independent claims 1 and 11
Smith shows:
processing circuitry (Smith: page 2, ¶ 15; and page 3, ¶¶ 31-32) configured to:
provide, by processing circuitry of a facilitation agent, a descriptor into an ACH file associated with a fund transfer between a customer and a merchant for a target transaction financed by the facilitation agent (Smith: page 3, ¶ 30; and page 4, ¶ 41);
receive, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, bank account transaction data associated with candidate transactions from the bank account of the customer (Smith: page 3, ¶ 34; page 4, ¶ 36 and ¶ 46); and
selectively employ, by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent, a matching algorithm on the bank account transaction data to determine whether there is a match between the target transaction and one of the candidate transactions, wherein the selectively employing the matching algorithm comprises only employing the matching algorithm responsive to the descriptor identifying an entity of the target transaction and the entity also being associated with one of the candidate transactions (Smith: page 5, ¶ 49).
Smith does not show:
initiating, by the facilitation agent, a lending limitation on financing available to the customer based on an amount of the target transaction until the target transaction is captured or a predetermined period of time has passed without receiving a notice of insufficient funds from a customer bank having a bank account of the customer from which an ACH transfer is requested by the ACH file; and
responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined period of time, considering the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logs each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logs each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent applies machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, and wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified.
Document_815 shows:
initiating, by the facilitation agent, a lending limitation on financing available to the customer based on an amount of the target transaction until the target transaction is captured or a predetermined period of time has passed without receiving a notice of insufficient funds from a customer bank having a bank account of the customer from which an ACH transfer is requested by the ACH file (Document_815: page 5, ¶ 26); and
responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined time, considering the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation (Document_815: page 5, ¶ 26).
Motivation to combine Smith and Document_815:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Smith by initiating, by the facilitation agent, a lending limitation on financing available to the customer based on an amount of the target transaction until the target transaction is captured or a predetermined period of time has passed without receiving a notice of insufficient funds from a customer bank having a bank account of the customer from which an ACH transfer is requested by the ACH file; and responsive to determining the match before passage of the predetermined time, considering the target transaction to be captured and releasing the lending limitation of Document_815 in order to extend credit to credit card receivables (Document_815: page 5, ¶ 26).
Jupudi shows:
the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent is logging each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logs each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent applies machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, and wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified (Jupudi: page 2, ¶ 23; and page 3, ¶¶ 33-35).
Motivation to combine Smith and Jupudi:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Smith by the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logging each failure to determine the match along with a corresponding failure reason in a failure log, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent logs each success in determining the match along with a corresponding success reason in a success log, wherein the processing circuitry of the facilitation agent applies machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, and wherein the machine learning is updated and improved over time to modify the matching algorithm over time based on both success and failure to provide an update to the matching algorithm based on the identified patterns in both the reasons for failure and the reasons for success to reduce failures and increase successes based on the patterns identified of Jupudi in order to prevent future failed events (Jupudi: page 2, ¶ 23).
As to claims 2 and 12: Smith in view of Document_815, and further in view of Jupudi, shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Smith also shows that providing the descriptor into the ACH file comprises providing the descriptor into a batch header of the ACH file (Smith: page 4, ¶ 46).
As to claims 3 and 13: Smith in view of Document_815, and further in view of Jupudi, shows all the elements of claims 2 and 12. Smith also shows that the batch header comprises a first portion including an entity identifier, and a second portion including an encoded string associated with the ACH file, and wherein providing the descriptor into the batch header of the ACH file comprises providing the descriptor as a predetermined formatting of the encoded string (Smith: page 4, ¶ 44 and ¶ 46).
As to claims 4 and 14: Smith in view of Document_815, and further in view of Jupudi, shows all the elements of claims 3 and 13. Smith also shows that the predetermined formatting identifies a date of the ACH transfer (Smith: page 4, ¶ 46).
As to claims 5 and 15: Smith in view of Document_815, and further in view of Jupudi, shows all the elements of claims 4 and 14. Smith also shows that the matching algorithm determines a match responsive to: determining a first correspondence between the entity identifier of the one of the candidate transactions and an identity of the facilitation agent, and applying a transaction specific correspondence check based on whether the descriptor is available in association with the target transaction (Smith: page 4, ¶ 41).
As to claims 6 and 16: Smith in view of Document_815, and further in view of Jupudi, shows all the elements of claims 5 and 15. Smith also shows that the transaction specific correspondence check comprises: responsive to the descriptor being available, determining a second correspondence in amount of the target transaction and the one of the candidate transactions, determining a third correspondence between date of the target transaction and the date of the ACH transfer, determining a fourth correspondence between a user identifier associated with the target transaction and an identity of the customer, and determining the match responsive to the first, second, third and fourth correspondences (Smith: page 3, ¶ 30; page 4, ¶¶ 40-41; and page 5, ¶ 49).
As to claims 7 and 17: Smith in view of Document_815, and further in view of Jupudi, shows all the elements of claims 5 and 15. Smith also shows that the transaction specific correspondence check comprises: responsive to the descriptor being available, determining a second correspondence in amount of the target transaction and the one of the candidate transactions, determining a third correspondence between a user identifier associated with the target transaction and an identity of the customer, and determining the match responsive to the first, second, and third correspondences (Smith: page 3, ¶ 30; page 4, ¶ 41 and ¶ 46; and page 5, ¶ 49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grassadonia (US 2023/0115345 A1) discloses: “In particular embodiments, techniques include receiving a request to establish an automated transaction that includes transferring funds from a first financial account to a second financial account. The automated transaction occurs in a plurality of instances. The techniques include determining that a next instance of the automated transaction is to be executed and, prior to executing the next instance, predicting a future balance of the first financial account as a result of executing the next instance. The techniques include determining that the predicted future balance is below a threshold amount and automatically postponing the next instance until the predicted future balance exceeds the threshold amount. The techniques include, upon determining that the predicted future balance exceeds the threshold amount, automatically executing the next instance by causing a transfer of funds from the first financial account to the second financial account.”
Alexander (US 2005/0246289 A1) discloses: “Method for processing a transaction, the method comprising automatically requesting an automated clearing house transfer from a source account to a destination account via an automated clearing house network, receiving the automated clearing house transfer, adjusting destination account data associated with the destination account by increasing a balance of the destination account by an amount of the transfer, receiving transaction data from a merchant indicating an attempted transaction, the transaction data including a transaction amount and data identifying the destination account, processing the attempted transaction with a credit card interchange rate, and transmitting data to the merchant indicating one of authorization of the attempted transaction and denial of the attempted transaction.”
McAndrews, James. "The automated clearinghouse system: moving toward electronic payment." Business Review, July/August (1994): 15-23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
