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 response to a non-final Office action on 10/10/2025 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 In light of Applicant’s amendment and arguments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-17.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 § 101 rejection for claims 1-7 and 11-17, and maintained the previous grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 1-7 and 11-17 in the instant Office action. Since Examiner is maintaining the previous grounds of § 103 rejection and the new § 101 rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-17 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
§ 101 Rejection:
Applicant argues in pages 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to further clarify that 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. Applicant respectfully submits that these additional features direct the claims away from any abstract idea and instead to the technical arena of employing machine learning to intelligently control and improve the technical performance of the matching aspect of the invention using matching algorithm updating with improved and updated machine learning over time that is managed in a way that extends beyond the capabilities of a general purpose computer, and defines a practical application or includes additional elements that are, in any case, significantly more than just any alleged abstract idea.
The claims do not merely try to claim an abstract process that could be performed in the human mind or manually by a human as alleged. Although some determinations may be made as part of the overall invention, the inventive aspect is in the provision of a technical tool for doing a useful task that is far beyond the capability of humans or even general purpose computers to determine.
In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that the above-underlined operations constitute a practical application. As amended, independent claims 1 and 11 include algorithm updating performed by technical tools (i.e., machine learning) that are far beyond the capability of the human mind, and therefore cannot even remotely be characterized as an organization of human activity, and that are updated and improved over time to establish continuous learning that is characteristic of machine learning and its technical advantages. Moreover, the recited tasks are performed using such a tool precisely because of the difficulty in dealing with massive volumes of information must be processed, thereby further demonstrating the incapacity of the human mind, or any organization of human activity, to complete the task. Thus, the claimed invention describes using the machine learning as a tool that demonstrates a mathematical challenge that is beyond human capacity, and the machine learning is a key tool, along with the other processing steps defined, in the accomplishment of a practical application of the processing and tools employed, namely updating the matching algorithm based on patterns in successes and failures. However, the tool is also updated and improved over time to show the continuous nature of the learning employed, which defines a practical application.
. . .
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the specificity with which the employment of the machine learning is described is evidence that the claim covers a particular solution to the particular problem, and a particular way to achieve the outcome instead of a mere desired outcome or the idea of an outcome. Thus, under MPEP 2106.05(a), citing McRo and DDR Holdings cases, the claims should be seen to satisfy the improvement consideration.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, and as before, newly amended features do not render instant independent claims 1 and 11 patent eligible because they are still recited in high level of generality lacking details and specifics for how the problem in technology is solved in technological means. Instant independent claims 1 and 11 still do not recite how the 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).
Second, Examiner did not find that claims belong to the group “mental process” but instead to the group “certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions).” Thus, Applicant’s argument that recited claim steps cannot be performed in human mind is moot.
Third, in Fairwarning, the Federal Circuit Court further distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in DDR Holdings elaborating: “The claims here do not propose a solution or overcome a problem “specifically arising in the realm of computer [technology].” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. At most, the claims require that these processes be executed on a generic computer.” (12). Again, similarly here, the instant claims do not propose a solution or overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology, but instead, require, at most, a general purpose computer. Therefore, the instant claims 1-7 and 11-17 are not patent eligible in view of DDR Holdings.
Fourth, in FairWarning, the Federal Circuit Court also distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in McRO: “The claims here are more like those in Alice than McRO. FairWarning’s claims merely implement an old practice in a new environment. … Although FairWarning’s claims require the use of a computer, it is this incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly “improve[s] [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.” (7-8). Again, this is similar to the instant claims which require a use of a computer, and it is this use of computer instead of a claimed rule that purportedly improves existing technological process. Therefore, the instant claims 1-7 and 11-17 are not patentable in view of McRO.
As such, the instant claims are no patent eligible under § 101. Applicant is invited to set up an interview with Examiner to further discuss this issue.
§ 103 Rejection:
Applicant argues in page 15 of Applicant’s Remarks:
As noted above, independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite, inter alia, applying machine learning to identify patterns in reasons for failure and success in the failure log and the success log, respectively, and that 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. The Office Action admits, and Applicant agrees, that each of Smith and Document_815 fails to teach or suggest any aspect of machine learning with respect to success and failure log entries. To cure the admitted deficiency of Smith and Document_815, Jupudi was cited in connection with rejecting claims 1 and 11. However, although Jupudi does discuss applying machine learning to log data for analyzing failures, Jupudi provides no disclosure regarding using machine learning for pattern recognition associated with reasons for success and failure, much less doing so in the context of modifying a matching algorithm in the manner claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Jupudi (US 2022/0321422 A1) specifically teaches (emphasis by Examiner):
[0023] A Wi-Fi controller 120 can be at the center of a variety of different network events concerning network connectivity and data events, and thus stored those event outcomes for access by the multi-level machine learning server 110. For example, an access point 125 managed by the Wi-Fi controller 120 log connectivity events when a wireless station 135 attempt connections for access over the Wi-Fi network to a backbone network, such as the Internet. An outcome of the connection attempt can be either a success or a failure. The failure can be caused by different categories of reasons including authentication, association, DHCP and DNS. More detailed examples include denial of a wireless client, maximum station count limit reached for a PSK, no response from a RADIUS server 105, no response for DHCP process and no response for DNS process by a DNS server 115. Successful outcome category examples can include a wireless client associated with an access point, a wireless client authenticated by an access point, and a wireless client assigned an IP address. Many other categories of success and failure are possible. In one embodiment, configurations on the Wi-Fi controller 120 are automatically updated by the multi-level machine learning server 110 based on patterns discovered in event logs. In turn, downstream access points and stations can be configured by the Wi-Fi controller 120 to prevent future failed events or for a retried event.
[0033] At step 410, log events are captured for a private network. At step 420, multi-level machine learning model is generated from the captured Wi-Fi log events, as described more fully below in association with FIG. 5. At step 430, outcomes are predicted for Wi-Fi input events, in real-time for some cases. Optionally, a failure prediction of the real-time input event is automatically remediated (e.g., see FIGS. 3A and 3B). In another embodiment, failures are derived from batch data and remediated after the fact either automatically or manually.
[0034] Returning to step 420, one example implementation is shown in FIG. 5. At step 510, captured log events are received and parsed to expose event outcome data. At step 520, a first data set is generated by determining whether an outcome associated with the event outcome data was a success or a failure. Responsive to a failed event outcome, a second data set is generated by categorizing the failed event outcome at step 530. Many different categories are possible.
[0035] At step 540, multiple level SVMs are trained. A first model of SVMs is trained using the first data set and a second model of SVM can be trained using the second data set.
Here, Jupudi teaches logging both success and failure events [0023]; collecting data of log events – both success and failure log events [Fig. 4, label 410]; and generating training data sets based on both success and failure log events [Fig. 5, labels 510-530]. Trained model is then generated predicting outcomes as success or failure outcomes based on training data of successful and unsuccessful log events [Fig. 5, label 540]. After this, the model is updated with new input data predicting outcomes [Fig. 4, label 430]. Therefore, Jupudi teaches the “applying” step including the newly added feature.
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 1-20 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);
“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” (claims 1 and 11); 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,
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements:
“a facilitation agent” (claims 1 and 11); and
“processing circuitry” (claims 1 and 11).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount 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). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: 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 elements/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 elements 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 elements/limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/ limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/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
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 (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.
Wang, Shih-Yu. Automating the United States payment system. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
Furst, Karen, and Daniel E. Nolle. "ACH Payments: Changing Users and Changing Uses." Available at SSRN 2318092 (2005).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
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