DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the claims filed on 06/13/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Statutory Categories
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method.
Claims 8-14 are directed to an Computer-Readable Medium.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a system.
Independent Claims – Claims 1, 8, and 15
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites limitations that are abstract ideas in the form of mental processes:
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising: determining account features corresponding to a client account of a client; generating, from the account features, a digital asset availability prediction indicating a predicted asset availability time of an account asset corresponding to the client account (this limitation merely recites generating an availability prediction of an account asset at a high level of generality such that is being considered mental processes of evaluation which can reasonably be performed in human mind or with aid additional aid of pen and paper)
generating, from the account features, a digital intent classification for the client… (this limitation merely recites generating an intent classification of an account asset at a high level of generality such that is being considered mental processes of evaluation which can reasonably be performed in human mind or with aid additional aid of pen and paper)
Claim 1 also recites the following additional elements for the purposes of Step 2A Prong Two
analysis:
utilizing an availability prediction machine learning model; (using a availability prediction machine learning model, stated at a high level of generality, is being considered as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
utilizing an intent prediction machine learning model; (using a intent prediction machine learning model, stated at a high level of generality, is being considered as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
and providing, to a client device corresponding to the client account, a pre-emptive digital notification regarding the predicted asset availability time based on the digital asset availability prediction and the digital intent classification. (providing a notification based on data is merely data outputting and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional limitations fail step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 analysis because they do not transform the claim into a practical application. These limitations are too abstract or lack technical improvement that would make the concept practically useful. Without clear utility or integration into a specific field, the claim does not relate to any particular application. It does not meet the requirements of Step 2A Prong 2, as it fails to make the concept meaningfully applicable in practice.
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
This claim recites the following additional elements for the purposes of Step 2B analysis:
utilizing an availability prediction machine learning model; (using a availability prediction machine learning model, stated at a high level of generality, is being considered as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
utilizing an intent prediction machine learning model; (using a intent prediction machine learning model, stated at a high level of generality, is being considered as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
and providing, to a client device corresponding to the client account, a pre-emptive digital notification regarding the predicted asset availability time based on the digital asset availability prediction and the digital intent classification. (providing a notification based on data is merely data outputting and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), furthermore it should be noted that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.)
The claim also fails Step 2B of the analysis because the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional limitations do not enhance the claim in a way that would move it beyond its abstract ideas as they minimally elaborate on the core concept without adding any inventive or technical substance. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claim 8 recites an additional limitation for consideration:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to: (Under step 2A prong II and step 2B, this limitation is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process or are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 15 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claim 15 recites an additional limitation for consideration:
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (Under step 2A prong II and step 2B, this limitation is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process or are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependents of Claims 1, 8, and 15
The remaining dependent claims corresponding to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of which is shown below:
The claims below recite additional limitations which fail step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 analysis because they do not transform the claim into a practical application. These limitations are too abstract or lack technical improvement that would make the concept practically useful. Without clear utility or integration into a specific field, the claim does not relate to any particular application. It does not meet the requirements of Step 2A Prong 2, as it fails to make the concept meaningfully applicable in practice.
The claims also fails Step 2B of the analysis because the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional limitations do not enhance the claim in a way that would move it beyond its abstract ideas as they minimally elaborate on the core concept without adding any inventive or technical substance. The claims are unpatentable.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating the digital intent classification comprises: generating a plurality of digital intent classification predictions and a plurality of intent classification probabilities; (a mental process of generating probabilities stated at a high level of generality that can reasonable be performed in human mind or with aid of pen and paper)
and comparing the plurality of intent classification probabilities to a threshold classification probability. (a mental process of comparing probability values to a predetermined threshold that can reasonable be performed in human mind or with aid of pen and paper)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the additional limitation of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: selecting a triggering notification event; (a mental process of selection of a triggering event for notification that can reasonable be performed in human mind or with aid of pen and paper)
and in response to detecting the triggering notification event, providing the pre-emptive digital notification. (For the purposes of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: providing a notification based on data is merely data outputting and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), furthermore it should be noted that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitation of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein selecting the triggering notification event comprises selecting an application initiation event comprising initiation of a session within an application of the client device corresponding to the client account. (a mental process of selection of triggering a notification event based on the user’s session initiation that can reasonable be performed in human mind or with aid of pen and paper)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitation of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, to the client device, an additional notification regarding the account asset upon detecting that the account asset is available via the client account. (For the purposes of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: providing a notification based on data is merely data outputting and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), furthermore it should be noted that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the additional limitation of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, to the client device, an additional notification upon determining that the account asset is not available by the predicted asset availability time. (For the purposes of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: providing a notification based on data is merely data outputting and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), furthermore it should be noted that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the additional limitation of:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, to the client device, an additional notification upon determining at least one of: a status progression event for the account asset; or satisfaction of a status progression time threshold without detecting the status progression event. (For the purposes of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: providing a notification based on data is merely data outputting and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), furthermore it should be noted that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 recite limitations substantially similar to claims 2-7, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claims 16-20 recite limitations substantially similar to claims 2-6, as such a similar analysis applies.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al., (US20220309573A1), hereafter referred to as Mathew, in view of Kulkarni et al. (US20140207622A1), hereafter referred to as Kulkarni.
Claim 1: Mathew teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: determining account features corresponding to a client account of a client; (Mathew, paragraph 17, “identifying, from a transaction history for an account, an actual set of transfers made to a first recipient”;
Matthew, paragraph 89, “The account data that is passed through the classifier to train the classifier may include transaction listings and may also include other biographical data associated with the account.”, Mathew further teaches that the plurality of parameters associated with the account data may include “a past non-sufficient funds event,” “a location indicator identifying a location,” “an account duration,” “a balance,” “an indication of decrease in income,” and “an indication of spending in a defined spending category” (Paragraph 46). Mathew therefore teaches determining account features corresponding to a client account because the disclosed transaction history / transaction listing, biographical data associated with the account, and the disclosed account-data parameters are each pieces of data derived from and associated with the client’s account that are used as inputs for downstream predictive processing. These are reasonably interpreted as features of a client’s account because they are account-specific characteristics or measurements used by Mathew’s predictive model.)
generating, from the account features, a digital asset availability prediction (Mathew, paragraph 17, “identifying, based on the first reference transfer, an expected set of transfers”
Mathew, paragraph 32, “identifying one or more projected future transfers for first account based on a date associated with the initial transfer and the first rule;”, Mathew teaches generating a prediction from account-related data by identifying an expected set of transfers and projected future transfers based on prior account transfer information and transfer rules. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a projected future transfer for an account is a prediction concerning future availability of an account-related asset.)
indicating a predicted asset availability time of an account asset corresponding to the client account utilizing an availability prediction machine learning model; (Mathew, paragraph 21, “In at least some implementations the future expected transfer may be associated with a date and wherein the notification is provided in response to determining that a date of the future expected transfer is within a defined proximity of a current date.”
Mathew, paragraph 43, “The method may include: obtaining account data associated with an account; passing at least some of the account data through a non-sufficient funds classifier, the non-sufficient funds classifier including a machine learning classifier configured to classify the account as either likely to have a non-sufficient funds event or unlikely to have a non-sufficient funds event”, Mathew teaches that the predicted future account-related event is associated with a date, which corresponds to a predicted time for the expected account event. It also expressly teaches use of a machine learning binary classifier on account data. This teaches using a machine-learning-based predictive model to generate a prediction tied to a future date, i.e., a predicted availability time for the account-related event or asset.)
providing, to a client device corresponding to the client account, a pre-emptive digital notification regarding the predicted asset availability time based on the digital asset availability prediction; (Mathew, paragraph 21, “In at least some implementations the future expected transfer may be associated with a date and wherein the notification is provided in response to determining that a date of the future expected transfer is within a defined proximity of a current date.”;
Mathew, Abstract, “providing, to a client device associated with the account, a notification based on a forecasted balance.” Mathew teaches providing, to a client device corresponding to the client account, a pre-emptive digital notification regarding the predicted asset availability time based on the digital asset availability prediction because Mathew teaches that a future expected transfer is associated with a date, i.e., a predicted time for the account-related event, and further teaches that a notification is provided to the client device when that predicted date is within a defined proximity of the current date. This is a notification based on Mathew’s predicted future account event / predicted account condition.)
Kulkarni, in the same field of intent classification, teaches the following which Mathew fails to teach:
generating, from the account features, a digital intent classification for the client utilizing an intent prediction machine learning model; (Kulkarni, paragraph 43, “Understanding the intent of the user when the user interacts with the provider also leads to an understanding that each user may require a specific type of engagement mode. Thus, a user may be classified as price conscious, feature conscious, brand conscious, service conscious, and so on.”;
Kulkarni, paragraph 53, “This combined data is used to build an intent based classification method 41. This method relies on machine learning and statistical techniques and in general is referred to as intent prediction.”;
Kulkarni, paragraph 55, “The results of the data fusion stage are applied to an intent prediction stage 44. For example, when a visitor 43 visits a website or posits a query, a series of intents are identified, each intent having a related probability, based on an intent prediction function ”, Kulkarni expressly teaches generating an intent classification by identifying a series of intents for a user and assigning each intent a related probability and also discloses classifying the user into intent-oriented categories, such as price-conscious or feature-conscious, which squarely teaches a digital intent classification for the client. Kulkarni further teaches that user-related and multichannel data are used to build an intent-based classification method, and further states that this method relies on machine learning and statistical techniques and is referred to as intent prediction.)
providing, to a client device corresponding to the client account, a pre-emptive digital notification based on the digital intent classification. (Kulkarni, paragraph 22, “The intent of the user is identified and suitable recommendations are provided to the user, based on the user's preferences. A notification is then sent to the user with the recommended features and products.” Kulkarni teaches providing a digital notification to a user device based on the identified user intent, i.e., based on the digital intent classification, because Kulkarni teaches that once the user’s intent is identified, a notification is sent to the user with recommendations tailored to that identified intent.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kulkarni into Mathew, a motivation of which would have been to improve Mathew’s predictive account-event notification framework by making the resulting notification more context-aware and user-relevant based on the client’s inferred intent. Kulkarni expressly teaches that “…the intent of the user is identified…” and that “…a notification is then sent to the user…” (Paragraph 22) and further teaches that its intent-prediction method relies on “…machine learning and statistical techniques…” (Paragraph 53) to identify likely user intent from user-related information and multichannel behavior. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that using Kulkarni’s intent-prediction techniques with Mathew’s account-event prediction system would improve the timing, content, or relevance of notifications delivered to the client device.
Claim 2: Mathew and Kulkarni teaches the method of claim 1, Kulkarni further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating the digital intent classification comprises: generating a plurality of digital intent classification predictions and a plurality of intent classification probabilities; (Kulkarni, paragraph 55, “The results of the data fusion stage are applied to an intent prediction stage 44. For example, when a visitor 43 visits a website or posits a query, a series of intents are identified, each intent having a related probability, based on an intent prediction function ”, Kulkarni expressly teaches a plurality of predicted intents, namely a series of intents, and further teaches that each such intent has a related probability. This directly teaches generating multiple intent classification predictions and multiple intent classification probabilities.)
and comparing the plurality of intent classification probabilities to a threshold classification probability. (Kulkarni, paragraph 44, “Once the intent prediction module learns (307) the preference of the user, a score or rating may be assigned (308). This score is essentially equivalent to the probability that the user intent is a specific intent.”
Kulkarni, paragraph 60, “The weighted probabilities thus obtained for each product are processed to produce a top m items which comprise recommendations to the user.”, Kulkarni teaches assigning a score equivalent to the probability of a specific user intent and then processing weighted probabilities to select a subset of outputs, namely the top m items. The Examiner interprets this selection operation as at least suggesting comparison of the identified intent probabilities against a decision criterion, such as a minimum probability cutoff, ranking boundary, or threshold value, in order to determine which intent classifications should be used for downstream recommendations / notifications. Accordingly, Kulkarni does not expressly disclose a threshold classification probability, but it would have rendered such a comparison obvious as a routine implementation choice for selecting which predicted intents are sufficiently probable to classify.)
Claim 5: Mathew and Kulkarni teaches the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, to the client device, an additional notification regarding the account asset upon detecting that the account asset is available via the client account. (Mathew, paragraph 17, “the method may further include: identifying a future expected transfer based on the identified one of the candidate rules; and providing a notification to a client device associated with the account of the future expected transfer.”;
Matthew, paragraph 26, “the notification may indicate a projected future balance.”
Mathew, paragraph 27, “the method may include sending a message to the client device requesting confirmation of the identified candidate rule or the future expected transfer.”;
Mathew, paragraph 141, “the method 600 may include, after a predetermined period of time has elapsed following the identification of one of the candidate rules, re-identifying one of the candidate rules as the closest rule for the actual set of transfers by evaluating each candidate rule based on recent transfers. The recent transfers include at least some transfers occurring after a previous identification of one of the candidate rules.”, Mathew teaches sending a notification to a client device associated with the account regarding a future expected transfer, and further teaches sending a message to the client device regarding that expected transfer. It also teaches later evaluating recent transfers occurring after a previous identification and identifying an actual set of transfers from the account transaction history. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, once the expected transfer is reflected in the actual transfers of the account, Mathew teaches detecting that the account-related asset is available via the client account and further teaches notifying the client regarding the account state.)
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claim 8 also recites the additional limitation further taught my Mathew:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to: (Mathew, paragraph 54, “In a further aspect, there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to perform a method described herein.”)
Claim 15 also recites the additional limitation further taught my Mathew:
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (Mathew, paragraph 54, “In a further aspect, there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to perform a method described herein.”)
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 2, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew in view of Kulkarni, and in further view of Raleigh et al., (US8745191B2), hereafter referred to as Raleigh.
Claim 3: Mathew and Kulkarni teaches the method of claim 1, Raleigh, in the same field of event notification implementation, teaches the following which Mathew and Kulkarni fails to teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: selecting a triggering notification event; (Raleigh, col. 30, line 14, “associate the notification message sequence information with a service usage notification trigger event detection criteria, in which the service usage notification trigger event detection criteria defines the service usage conditions or state of service usage for which the service usage notification message sequence is intended to be displayed to a device user, associate the service usage notification trigger event detection criteria with a notification trigger index or notification trigger message; program a notification trigger event detection criteria identification element,”, Raleigh expressly teaches defining notification trigger event detection criteria and identifying particular triggers or event points. This directly teaches selecting a triggering notification event.)
and in response to detecting the triggering notification event, providing the pre-emptive digital notification. (Raleigh, col. 53, line 47, ” notification agent 1697 can use the notification trigger index or trigger message information as a reference to initiate a notification message sequence based on information stored on a network element… notification agent 1697 may be configured to perform a combination of two or more of the above operations; and the device notification agent communicates with a device UI to provide the notification message sequence to the device user.”, Raleigh teaches that when the trigger information is received or when the defined trigger event exists, the device notification agent initiates the notification message sequence. That is the claimed causal relationship of providing the notification in response to detecting the triggering event.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Raleigh into the combination of Mathew and Kulkarni, a motivation of which would have been to provide a more controlled and event-driven mechanism for deciding when to present the already-predicted, intent-informed notification. Raleigh expressly teaches “…notification trigger event detection criteria…” (Raleigh, col. 30, line 14) and teaches that the device notification agent initiates a notification message sequence when the trigger information is received. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use such trigger-event logic with the combined Mathew+Kulkarni system so that the predicted and intent-based notification is delivered at an appropriate event point, such as application initiation, rather than at an arbitrary time.
Claim 4: Mathew, Kulkarni, and Raleigh teaches the method of claim 3, Raleigh further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein selecting the triggering notification event comprises selecting an application initiation event comprising initiation of a session within an application of the client device corresponding to the client account. (Raleigh, col. 81, line 25, “In some embodiments, a launch or execution of an application on the device is determined/detected using various techniques. For example, policy manager agent 4250 can subscribe as a listener to applicant start intent to listen to such application start events. The policy manager agent 4250 can determine whether a policy exists/applies to a started application.”, Raleigh expressly teaches detecting a launch or execution of an application and listening to an application start intent thread to identify a request to execute a first application. It further teaches detecting the start of an application and then applying notification or policy logic to the started application. Starting the application reasonably reads on initiation of a session within the application on the client device.)
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 3, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar to claim 4, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew in view of Kulkarni, and in further view of Tumminaro et al., (US20070244811A1), hereafter referred to as Tumminaro.
Claim 6: Mathew and Kulkarni teaches the method of claim 1, Tumminaro, in the same field of event notification implementation, teaches the following which Mathew and Kulkarni fails to teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, to the client device, an additional notification upon determining that the account asset is not available by the predicted asset availability time. (Tumminaro, paragraph 344, “…If there are insufficient funds, A is sent a message: ‘Insufficient funds …If debit and credit transactions fail, A and B are sent message: ‘Payment failed…If more than 30 days passes … and B has not yet approved, the transaction is automatically canceled… A and B will be sent message: ‘Payment canceled”, Tumminaro teaches multiple situations in which the expected account-related value transfer does not become available or complete as expected, including insufficient funds, payment failed, and expiration of a set time period without approval, followed by cancellation. These disclosed failure and timeout conditions reasonably teach determining that the expected account asset is not available by the expected time. It further teaches sending additional messages when the expected transaction does not complete successfully, including notifications for insufficient funds, payment failed, and payment canceled. This directly teaches the claimed additional notification.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Tumminaro into the combination of Mathew and Kulkarni, a motivation of which would have been to add clearer handling and messaging for non-completion, delay, failure, and timeout-based status progression events associated with the expected account asset. Tumminaro expressly teaches notifications such as “…Insufficient funds…,” “…Payment failed…,” “…Payment accepted…,” and also teaches that “…If more than 30 days passes … the transaction is automatically canceled…” followed by a cancellation message. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use Tumminaro’s transaction-state and timeout notification teachings to supplement the combined system so that, in addition to predicting an expected account event and notifying when funds become available, the system also provides further notifications when the expected event is delayed, fails, or does not progress within a configured time threshold.
Claim 7: Mathew and Kulkarni teaches the method of claim 1, Tuminaro, in the same field of event notification implementation, teaches the following which Mathew and Kulkarni fails to teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, to the client device, an additional notification upon determining at least one of: a status progression event for the account asset; (Tumminaro, paragraph 344, “…If there are insufficient funds, A is sent a message: ‘Insufficient funds …If debit and credit transactions fail, A and B are sent message: ‘Payment failed…If more than 30 days passes … and B has not yet approved, the transaction is automatically canceled… A and B will be sent message: ‘Payment canceled”, Tumminaro expressly discloses multiple transaction states and corresponding notifications, including pending, accepted, declined, failed, and canceled. These are status progression events for the account-related transfer/asset, and teaches issuing notifications in response to those events.)
or satisfaction of a status progression time threshold without detecting the status progression event. (Tumminaro, paragraph 344, “…If there are insufficient funds, A is sent a message: ‘Insufficient funds …If debit and credit transactions fail, A and B are sent message: ‘Payment failed…If more than 30 days passes … and B has not yet approved, the transaction is automatically canceled… A and B will be sent message: ‘Payment canceled”, Tumminaro directly teaches the second branch of the limitation: when the desired progression event does not occur within a specified time threshold of more than 30 days, the system automatically changes the transaction state to canceled and sends a notification.)
The rationale for the combination of Mathew and Kulkarni with Tumminaro is similar to that as applied for claim 6 above.
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6, as such a similar analysis applies.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7, as such a similar analysis applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20220366488A1
US20060131385A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUNGJUN B YI whose telephone number is (703)756-4799. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. 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.
/H.B.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights