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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 24 November 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20, 22, 25-26, 29, 32-33, 36 and 39 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 21, 28 and 35 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 41-45 are newly added.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, 34-35, 37-38 and 40-45 is/are currently pending and 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Section 101 Rejections
Step 2A: Prong One
Applicant argues that Claim 21 is eligible under Step 2A Prong One because the claim does not recite an abstract idea, highlighting the generating and transferring steps. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Step 2A: Prong Two
Applicant argues that the steps identified on page 14 of the remarks go beyond merely reciting instructions and instead recite computer operations that restructure how settlement logic is stored, accessed, and automatically applied at runtime and accordingly, applies any alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way that improves the functioning of the electronic settlement processing. Applicant further cites sections of the specification that highlight their asserted improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement (as explained above) comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The recitation of generic computing components to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility.
Step 2B
Applicant argues under the assumption that Examiner took the position that several components in the claims were identified as well-understood, routine, or conventional. This is incorrect. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Only elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity must be further re-evaluated under Step 2B as to whether or not they constitute well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Section 103 Rejections
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the newly amended generating step and nested conditional rules. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the reference “creating” the database, Examiner further notes that the claims do not recite creating the database from nothing and thus may include, under its BRI, creating additional database extensions or databases from a preexisting version. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., creating the database from nothing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the cited references do not claim pooled account transfers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification describes a pooled account in one embodiment as the following: “The funds in the pooled account can be the result of processing one or more transactions on behalf of the merchant” (specification at paragraph [0034]. Sellen discloses that account transfers may be made on-behalf of a merchant. “Therefore, merchants often subscribe to a check acceptance agency, such as TeleCheck.TM., that coordinates electronic check related financial transactions with the Federal Reserve on behalf of the merchant” and “The check approval agency 104 utilizes the direct electronic access system 114 to submit requests for monetary fund transfers from one account to another on behalf of the merchant 102. For example, the check approval agency 104 may choose to send an electronic request to a financial institution, such as the customer's financial institution 116, via the designated electronic network to transfer monetary funds from an identified account to another account”. See at least paragraphs [0007] and [0042]. Thus the functionality of the accounts disclosed in Sellen matches that disclosed by the applicant’s specification.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 18 June 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,704,633, US 10,915,871, US 9,965,749, and US 8,700,525 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 21, 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, 34-35, 37-38 and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for variable settlement accounts. These are a process, machine, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 21, 28 and 35:
Claims 21, 28 and 35:
“receiving,…, information identifying the settlement accounts associated with the merchant…;”
“receiving,…, the settlement rules corresponding to the settlement accounts…;”
“generating,…,a rules database…to store the settlement rules as nested conditional rules, wherein each nested conditional rule defines an amount threshold and a settlement frequency;”
“receiving,…, an electronic transfer of funds into a pooled account associated with the merchant;”
“transferring,…, the funds from the pooled account to the settlement accounts, based on the settlement rules, … analyze the settlement rules and dynamically select, based on a rule-specified logic, one or more transfer techniques for initiating the transfer to the settlement accounts.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device”, “processor”, “memory”, or “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a device of an acquirer processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when receiving and applying settlement rules during a settlement. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following additional (or similar) elements:
Claims 21, 28 and 35:
“causing, by a device of an acquirer processor, a display of a user interface by a merchant computing device of a merchant, wherein the interface includes an account summary portion and an account rules portion;”
“causing, by the device of the acquirer processor and via the account summary portion of the user interface, a display of an account type field that permits the merchant to select respective account types of settlement accounts, and an account identifier field that permits the merchant to enter respective account identifiers of the settlement accounts;”
“…by the device of the acquirer processor and from the merchant computing device of the merchant… based on the merchant inputting the information identifying the settlement accounts via the account summary portion of the user interface;”
“causing, by the device of the acquirer processor and via the account rules portion of the user interface, a display of one or more fields that permit the merchant to enter one or more directives for respective settlement rules for the respective settlement accounts, and an account field that permits the merchant to select the respective settlement account to which the respective settlement rules are applicable;”
“…by the device of the acquirer processor and from the merchant computing device… based on the merchant inputting the settlement rules via the account rules portion of the user interface;”
“…by the acquirer processor…in a computer-readable memory…”
“…by the device of the acquirer processor…”
“… wherein a settlement engine of the acquirer processor is configured to…”
Claim 28:
“a memory configured to store instructions;”
“a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:”
Claim 35:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a device of an acquirer processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:”
The computer components (devices, processors, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic devices, generic processors and generic storages) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The displaying step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally displaying) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of a user interface is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for displaying various information) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 23-24, 27, 30-31, 34, 37-38 and 40-45 recite processes that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. There are no additional elements which were identified as well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 21, 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, 34-35, 37-38 and 40-44 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sellen et al. (US 2004/0236692 hereinafter Sellen) in view of Bhosle et al. (US 2013/0232067 A1 hereinafter Bhosle) further in view of Varghese (US 2009/0089869 A1 hereainfter Varghese).
Claim 21
A method comprising:
causing, by a device of an acquirer processor, a display of a user interface by a merchant computing device of a merchant, wherein the interface includes an account summary portion and an account rules portion; (Sellen discloses merchant displays with interfaces. See at least paragraph [0029]. Sellen discloses graphical user interfaces to store, retrieve, and process information of a rules database. See at least paragraph [0054].
Although Sellen does disclose displaying merchant interfaces and does disclose keying in transaction information and rules via user interface, they might not explicitly disclose entering in said information via a user interface with separate portions that display account and rules information. Bhosle teaches a graphical user interface with at least first and second portions whereby a user may be displayed account information (i.e. account summary portion and account fields) as well as rules information (i.e. rules portion). See at least paragraphs [0012]-[0015], [0021]-[0029] and Fig. 2.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the user interface of Bhosle to enter in the information of Sellen because Bhosle additionally teaches the motivation that said user interface may depict allocation rules and that include charge distribution allocation associated with linked accounts. See at least paragraph [0027].
Also, implementing the user interface of Bhosle to enter in the information of Sellen is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
causing, by the device of the acquirer processor and via the account summary portion of the user interface, a display of an account type field that permits the merchant to select respective account types of settlement accounts, and an account identifier field that permits the merchant to enter respective account identifiers of the settlement accounts; (Sellen discloses merchant displays with interfaces. See at least paragraph [0029]. Implementing the claimed user interface is taught by the combination with Bhosle as shown above.)
receiving, by the device of the acquirer processor and from the merchant computing device of the merchant, information identifying the settlement accounts associated with the merchant based on the merchant inputting the information identifying the settlement accounts via the account summary portion of the user interface; (Sellen discloses displays with interfaces. See at least paragraph [0029]. Sellen discloses merchants keying in transaction identification information via user interface. See at least paragraphs [0006] and [0029]. Implementing the claimed user interface is taught by the combination with Bhosle as shown above.)
causing, by the device of the acquirer processor and via the account rules portion of the user interface, a display of one or more fields that permit the merchant to enter one or more directives for respective settlement rules for the respective settlement accounts, and an account field that permits the merchant to select the respective settlement account to which the respective settlement rules are applicable; (Sellen discloses displays with interfaces. See at least paragraph [0029]. Implementing the claimed user interface is taught by the combination with Bhosle as shown above.)
receiving, by the device of the acquirer processor and from the merchant computing device, the settlement rules corresponding to the settlement accounts based on the merchant inputting the settlement rules via the account rules portion of the user interface; (Sellen discloses special rules see at least paragraphs [0037]-[0038]. Sellen discloses graphical user interfaces to store, retrieve, and process information of a rules database. See at least paragraph [0054]. Implementing the claimed user interface is taught by the combination with Bhosle as shown above.)
generating, by the acquirer processor, a rules database in a computer-readable memory to store the settlement rules as nested conditional rules, wherein each nested conditional rule defines an amount threshold and a settlement frequency; (Sellen discloses storing of information in a special rules relational database specifying conditional rules. See at least paragraphs [0053]-[0056] and [0072]. Sellen discloses using the transaction information from the received electronic heck to cross-reference special rule components. See at least paragraph [0075]. Although Sellen does disclose using transaction information to cross reference special rules components they might not explicitly disclose the rule being a nested rule and the rules defining an amount threshold and a frequency. Varghese teaches using rules that define amount thresholds and determining if user accounts are regularly used to transfer amounts over said threshold (i.e. frequency). See at least paragraph [0010]. Varghese further discloses that rules may be stored as nested conditional rules. See at least paragraphs [0090], [0103] and [0109].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize nested conditional rules that use amount and frequency as taught by Varghese in the system of Sellen because Varghese additionally teaches that said models reduce false positives and negatives and serve to ensure overall accuracy of a risk score. See at least paragraph [0103].
Also, utilizing nested conditional rules that use amount and frequency as taught by Varghese in the system of Sellen is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
receiving, by the device of the acquirer processor, an electronic transfer of funds into a pooled account associated with the merchant; and (Sellen discloses alternative resolution strategy. See at least paragraphs [0037]-[0042]. Sellen discloses managing funds in an account on behalf of a merchant (i.e. a pooled account). See at least paragraphs [0007] and [0042].)
transferring, by the device of the acquirer processor, the funds from the pooled account to the settlement accounts, based on the settlement rules stored in the rules database as the nested conditional rules wherein a settlement engine of the acquirer processor is configured to analyze the settlement rules and dynamically select, based on a rule-specified logic, one or more transfer techniques for initiating the transfer to the settlement accounts. (Sellen discloses clearing of accounts and special rules database. See at least paragraph [0052]. Sellen discloses identifying which electronic checks are likely to be difficult to settle (i.e. dynamically selected based on a rule-specified logic) and selecting a transaction route (i.e. transfer technique) that is more likely to result in favorable settlement of the transaction. See at least paragraphs [0012] and [0018]. Sellen discloses managing funds in an account on behalf of a merchant (i.e. a pooled account). See at least paragraphs [0007] and [0042]. Using nested conditional rules is taught by the combination with Veghese as shown above.)
Claim 23
The method of claim 21, wherein the settlement accounts include different types of settlement accounts. (Sellen discloses utilization of a different account number and/or different branch number of the financial institution to settle payment in financial transactions. See at least paragraphs [0037]-[0038].)
Claim 24
The method of claim 21, wherein the settlement accounts include one or more of checking accounts, savings accounts, pre-paid open- loop accounts, virtual wallet accounts, peer-to-peer accounts, pre-paid closed-loop accounts, investment accounts, loan accounts, money market accounts, or credit union accounts. (Sellen discloses accounts may include checking accounts and different institutions. See at least paragraphs [0044]-[0045].)
Claim 27
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
retaining, by the device of the acquirer processor, the funds in the pooled account based on an error in funding a particular account of the settlement accounts. (Sellen discloses rejecting a payment based on administrative return codes. See at least paragraph [0071].)
Claim 28
A device of an acquirer processor, the device comprising: (Sellen discloses embodying the invention with a computer. See at least paragraph [0048].)
a memory configured to store instructions; and (Sellen discloses embodying the invention with a computer. See at least paragraph [0048].)
a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: (Sellen discloses embodying the invention with a computer. See at least paragraph [0048].)
…
The remainder of Claim 28 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 21 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 23 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 31
Claim 31 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 24 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 34
Claim 34 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 27 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 35
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a device of an acquirer processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: (Sellen discloses embodying the invention with a computer. See at least paragraph [0048].)
…
The remainder of Claim 35 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 21 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 37
Claim 37 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 23 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 38
Claim 38 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 24 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 40
Claim 40 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 27 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 41
The method of claim 21, wherein the settlement rules include conditional rules that are applied based on one or more prior settlements or remaining funds in the pooled account. (Sellen discloses utilizing past electronic check transactions (i.e. prior settlements) to determine if an electronic check transaction for the received profile may not be successful and to develop special rules. See at least paragraphs [0019] and [0079].)
Claim 42
The method of claim 21, wherein the settlement rules include time-based rules that are applied at predetermined interval for settling funds to the respective settlement accounts. (Sellen discloses applying rules for settling funds to the respective settlement accounts by returning checks to the check acceptance agency after a period of time (i.e. time-based rules applied at a predetermined interval).)
Claim 43
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
transmitting, by the acquirer processor, remaining funds from the pooled account to a default settlement account upon determining the settlement rules are not satisfied during a settlement event. (Sellen discloses if one or more searched records are found not to match (i.e. no special rules are satisfied), then defaulting to proceeding to submitting the payment for settling (i.e. defaulting to the requested account). See at least paragraphs [0070]-[0171] and Fig. 4, items 214, 216 and 218.)
Claim 44
The method of claim 21, wherein access to the user interface is based on a user-specific permission level that controls visibility of the settlement accounts, the settlement rules, or account history data. (Although Sellen does disclose updating rules, collecting historical data and collecting account information, they might not explicitly disclose the features of Claim 44. Bhosle teaches that identifiers may serve as a mechanism to gain access to information including allocation rules. See at least paragraphs [0014]-[0015].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use identifiers as an access gate to settlement rules as taught by Bhosle in the system of Sellen because Bhosloe additionally teaches the motivation that this prevents/enables transactions associated with the master account. See at least paragraph [0015].
Also, using identifiers as an access gate to settlement rules as taught by Bhosle in the system of Sellen is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
Claim 45 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sellen et al. (US 2004/0236692 hereinafter Sellen) in view of Bhosle et al. (US 2013/0232067 A1 hereinafter Bhosle) further in view of Varghese (US 2009/0089869 A1 hereinafter Varghese) further in view of Buchanan et al. (US 2010/0100424 A1 hereinafter Buchanan).
Claim 45
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
displaying, via the user interface, a graphical representation of past settlements, wherein the graphical representation includes a bar chart, a pie chart, or a table indicating amount settled over a defined period. (Although the combination of Sellen/Bhosle/Varghese does disclose collecting user data and displaying it on an interface, they might not explicitly disclose displaying a graphical representation of past settlements wherein the graphical representation includes a bar chart, a pie chart, or a table indicating amount settled over a defined period. Buchanan teaches displaying a spending comparison tool which displays user spending (i.e. past settlements) during a particular month (i.e. defined period) as a bar graph indicating amount settled over said month alongside average financial information. See at least paragraph [0206] and Fig. 29B.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the spending tool as taught by Buchanan in the combined system of Sellen/Bhosle/Varghese because Buchanan additional teaches the motivation that this lets a user view a comparison of the user's financial information with the average financial information of a selected peer group. See at least paragraphs [0204]-[0205].
Also, including the spending tool as taught by Buchanan in the combined system of Sellen/Bhosle/Varghese is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanson et al. (WO 2013/003372 A1) discloses user interfaces for managing accounts and business rules.
White et al. (WO 2011146932 A1) discloses establishment of transaction rules for transaction processing.
Authors et al. (“Canadian Payments Landscape”) discloses establishment of payment and regulatory rules for electronic payments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (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 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691