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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 19 recites the limitation "the user input device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, the user input device is interpreted as a user device such as a mobile phone, computer, or laptop.
Dependent claims 12, 13, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 recite a system (i.e. machine), claims 9-16 recite a computer program product (i.e. machine or article of manufacture), and claims 17-20 recite method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the limitations: receiving source element data, the source element data comprising data elements related to at least two source elements; establishing resource request parameters, wherein the step of establishing resource request parameters comprises: receiving a resource request, the resource request comprising resource request data elements; extracting a first resource request data element from the resource request, wherein the first resource request data element comprises a temporal data element; projecting a time for completion of a resource request based upon the first resource request data element and establishing the projected time for completion as a resource request parameter; extracting a second resource request data element from the resource request, the second resource request element comprising a resource request value; and projecting a resource request completion value based upon the second resource request data element and establishing the projected resource request completion value as a resource request parameter; determining an execution source element, the step of determining an execution source element comprising: selecting a first user preference, wherein the first user preference comprises a first source element; extracting, from the first source element data, a source element value; determining if the first source element value is greater than the resource request completion value; and (a) if the first source element value is greater than the resource request completion value, identifying the first source element as the execution source element or (b) if the first source element value is not greater than the resource request completion value, determining a second user preference, wherein the second user preference comprises a second source element, repeating the step of determining an execution source element using the second source element, and repeating the step of determining an execution source element using additional source elements until an execution source element has been identified; and executing a resource transfer in response to the resource request using the execution source element. The invention and claims are drawn towards utilizing multiple accounts (e.g., checking, savings, etc.) to complete a resource request or transfer, and the claims recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior relationships; commercial interactions business relations) as evidence by the claims detailing receiving transfer or resource requests, determining a resource request value, and determining whether the source element value is greater than the request value in order to determine whether which source element to use to complete the resource request. The claims also directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the claims describe in detail the observation and evaluation of data, and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processing device (claim 1), a non-transitory device (claim 1), computer program product (claim 9), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 9), an apparatus (claim 9). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Note: Independent claim 17 presents no additional elements to consider under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite the limitations of a [user interface] wherein executing the instructions further causes the [processing device in claim 1, apparatus in claim 10] to display, on the [user interface], at least one of: the projected time for completion of a resource request, the resource request completion value, or the execution source element. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the user interface, processing device (claim 1), and apparatus (claim 10). The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 recite the limitations: receive a user preference matrix comprising potential resource request parameters and source element selection data elements, each of the source element selection data elements comprising a first user preference and a second user preference; wherein each of the potential resource request parameters data element of the user preference matrix corresponds to a source selection data element of the user preference matrix; and wherein at least the first user preference and the second user preference are determined by: identifying a potential resource request parameter of the user preference matrix that matches one or more of the resource request parameters of the resource request; extracting the first and second user preferences from the corresponding source element selection data element for use as the first and second user preferences for executing the resource request. The limitations are further directed to the abstract ideas analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional element(s) of a user input device, processing device (claim 3), apparatus (claim 11). The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-8, 12-16, and 20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above and/or additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 4-8, 12-16, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-10, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatti (US 11,184,292) in view of Kurian (2018/0308073).
Claim 1: Tatti discloses: A system for mapping and executing usage of multiple source elements for completion of a resource request, the system comprising:
a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: (Tatti Col. 13, Ln. 59-67 a computer program product that includes a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code portions stored therein; as used herein, a processor may be "configured to" perform a certain function in a variety of ways, including, for example by having one or more special-purpose circuits perform the functions by executing one or more computer-executable program code portions embodied in a computer-readable medium; Col. 14, Ln. 10-14 computer-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as a tangible electronic, magnetic, optical, infrared, electromagnetic, and/or semiconductor system, apparatus, and/or device)
receiving source element data, the source element data comprising data elements related to at least two source elements; (Tatti Col. 11, Ln. 6-13 disclosing the intelligent auto sweep in system 314 may determine, based on the predicted transaction amount, if an account (e.g., account A1) does not have enough funds (e.g., too low of a balance) to complete the predicted future transaction; the intelligent auto sweep in system 314 may transfer funds from one or more other accounts associated and/or interlinked with the account (e.g., account A2 and/or A3) to the account, such that, after the transfer, the account has enough funds to complete the predicted future transaction)
Tatti in view of Kurian discloses:
establishing resource request parameters, wherein the step of establishing resource request parameters comprises: receiving a resource request, the resource request comprising resource request data elements; extracting a first resource request data element from the resource request, wherein the first resource request data element comprises a temporal data element;
Tatti discloses establishing resource request parameters, wherein the step of establishing resource request parameters comprises: receiving a resource request, the resource request comprising resource request data elements; extracting a first resource request data element from the resource request: (Tatti Col. 9, Ln 10-25 transaction device may generate a transaction request (e.g., a distribution request, a payment request, and/or the like) and transmit the transaction request to a payment gateway; the transaction request may include information identifying the payment vehicle and a price of the transaction (e.g., a request amount of resources); the payment gateway may receive the transaction request from the transaction device and transmit the transaction request to a bank; the payment gateway may process the information identifying the payment vehicle, determine, based on the information identifying the payment vehicle, that the bank 308 and/or an account at the bank is associated with the payment vehicle, and transmit the transaction request to the bank). Tatti does not explicitly disclose that the first resource request data element comprises a temporal data element. Kurian suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kurian ¶0026 the system constructs a resource transfer program to arrange for the completion of the resource transfer request by transferring the resources from another source (i.e., another account) or by generating a payment plan where the resources may be transferred in installments over a predetermined period of time to gradually complete the transfer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatti to include that the first resource request data element comprises a temporal data element as taught by Kurian. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tatti in order to optimize resource transfers that are not able to be presented to the user within an efficient time frame that is convenient to the user for completion of the interaction (see ¶0027 of Kurian).
projecting a time for completion of a resource request based upon the first resource request data element and establishing the projected time for completion as a resource request parameter; (Kurian ¶0026 the system constructs a resource transfer program to arrange for the completion of the resource transfer request by transferring the resources from another source (i.e., another account) or by generating a payment plan where the resources may be transferred in installments over a predetermined period of time to gradually complete the transfer)
Tatti discloses establishing resource request parameters, but does not explicitly disclose projecting a time for completion of a resource request based upon the first resource request data element and establishing the projected time for completion as a resource request parameter. Kurian suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kurian ¶0026 the system constructs a resource transfer program to arrange for the completion of the resource transfer request by transferring the resources from another source (i.e., another account) or by generating a payment plan where the resources may be transferred in installments over a predetermined period of time to gradually complete the transfer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatti to include projecting a time for completion of a resource request based upon the first resource request data element and establishing the projected time for completion as a resource request parameter as taught by Kurian. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tatti in order to optimize resource transfers that are not able to be presented to the user within an efficient time frame that is convenient to the user for completion of the interaction (see ¶0027 of Kurian).
Tatti, as modified above, discloses the following:
extracting a second resource request data element from the resource request, the second resource request element comprising a resource request value; and (Tatti Col. 9, Ln 30-40 disclosing after the bank receives the transaction request, the account aggregation layer may process the transaction request, e.g., a resource management system, using the account aggregation layer, may process the transaction request in a manner similar to that described herein with respect to FIG. 2B, and in some embodiments, may transfer funds (e.g., resources) between accounts associated with the payment vehicle; note that in 2B from Col. 8, Ln. 48-55 disclosing if account A1 does not have enough funds (e.g., too low of a balance) to complete the transaction, the resource management system (e.g., using the account aggregation layer) may utilize funds from account A1, account A2, and/or A3 to complete the transaction (thus the second request data with a resource value); see also Col. 11, Ln. 5-18)
projecting a resource request completion value based upon the second resource request data element and establishing the projected resource request completion value as a resource request parameter; (Tatti Col. Col. 11, Ln. 5-18 the intelligent auto sweep in system may determine, based on the predicted transaction amount, if an account (e.g., account A1) does not have enough funds (e.g., too low of a balance) to complete the predicted future transaction; additionally, or alternatively, the intelligent auto sweep in system may transfer funds from one or more other accounts associated and/or interlinked with the account (e.g., account A2 and/or A3) to the account, such that, after the transfer, the account has enough funds to complete the predicted future transaction; Col. 12, Ln. 41-49 if the customer confirms the interlink transaction, the method 400 may include transferring funds (e.g., distributing resources) from account A2 and/or A3 to account A1 (block 420). The method 400 may include crediting an amount in account A1 and debiting the amount from account A2 and/or A3 (block 422). The method 400 may include completing the transaction from account A1 (block 424) and sending a message of the transaction status to the customer (block 408))
determining an execution source element, the step of determining an execution source element comprising: selecting a first user preference, wherein the first user preference comprises a first source element; extracting, from the first source element data, a source element value; (Tatti Col. 12, Ln. 8-14 determining whether a balance in account A1, associated with card C1, is too low to complete a transaction initiated by the customer (block 404). If the balance in account A1 is not too low, the method 400 may include completing the transaction from account A1 (block 406) and sending a message of the transaction status to the customer (block 408))
determining if the first source element value is greater than the resource request completion value; and (a) if the first source element value is greater than the resource request completion value, identifying the first source element as the execution source element or (b) if the first source element value is not greater than the resource request completion value, determining a second user preference, wherein the second user preference comprises a second source element, repeating the step of determining an execution source element using the second source element, and repeating the step of determining an execution source element using additional source elements until an execution source element has been identified; and executing a resource transfer in response to the resource request using the execution source element. (Tatti Col. 12, Ln. 8-14 determining whether a balance in account A1, associated with card C1, is too low to complete a transaction initiated by the customer (block 404). If the balance in account A1 is not too low, the method 400 may include completing the transaction from account A1 (block 406) and sending a message of the transaction status to the customer (block 408); Col. 11, Ln. 5-18 the intelligent auto sweep in system may determine, based on the predicted transaction amount, if an account (e.g., account A1) does not have enough funds (e.g., too low of a balance) to complete the predicted future transaction; additionally, or alternatively, the intelligent auto sweep in system may transfer funds from one or more other accounts associated and/or interlinked with the account (e.g., account A2 and/or A3) to the account, such that, after the transfer, the account has enough funds to complete the predicted future transaction; Col. 12, Ln. 41-49 if the customer confirms the interlink transaction, the method 400 may include transferring funds (e.g., distributing resources) from account A2 and/or A3 to account A1 (block 420). The method 400 may include crediting an amount in account A1 and debiting the amount from account A2 and/or A3 (block 422). The method 400 may include completing the transaction from account A1 (block 424) and sending a message of the transaction status to the customer (block 408))
Claims 9 and 17: Claims 9 and 17 are directed to a computer program product and method, respectively. Claims 9 and 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a system. Claims 9 and 17 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Additionally, in regard to claim 17, the Examiner further notes the recited "if" in the final claim limitations does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "identifying the first source element as the execution source element" or “determining a second user preference” step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing device to display, on the user interface, at least one of: the projected time for completion of a resource request, the resource request completion value, or the execution source element. (Tatti Col. 5, Ln. 46-50 disclosing the resource distribution device can be embodied as an apparatus (e.g., a physical card, a mobile device, or the like), or as a virtual transaction mechanism (e.g., a digital transaction device, digital wallet, a virtual display of a transaction device, or the like); Col. 12, Ln. 8-10 include determining whether a balance in account Al, associated with card Cl, is too low to complete a transaction initiated by the customer; Col. 12, Ln. 32-49 disclosing sending a message to the customer to confirm or deny using another account to complete the transaction and processing (or refraining from processing( and sending a message of the transaction status)
Claims 10 and 18: Claims 10 and 18 are directed to a computer program product and method, respectively. Claims 10 and 18 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a system. Claims 10 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the first user preference comprises determining the first user preference based upon the resource request completion value. (Tatti Col. 10, Ln. 7-9 and 20-21 disclosing the analytics system may provide input, such as customer specific thresholds, for the intelligent auto sweep in system; the user may set a threshold limit on an amount to be transferred into an interlinked account; Col. 12, Ln. 41-46 disclosing the customer confirming transferring funds from account 2 and/or 3 to account 2 to complete the transaction)
Claim 14: Claim 14 is directed to a computer program product. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a system. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing device to: extract, from the source element data, an identity of an authorized source element user of the execution source element; and notify the authorized source element user after execution of the resource request. (Tatti Col. 12, Ln. 21-26 if the card Cl is interlinked, the method 400 may include determining and/or checking one or more balances in other interlinked accounts, such as accounts A2 and A3 (block 414). The method 400 may include determining whether balances of accounts A2 and/or A3 are high enough to complete the transaction (block 416); Col. 12, Ln. 32-35 if the balances of accounts A2 and/or A3 are high enough to complete the transaction, the method 400 may include sending a message to the customer to confirm an interlink transaction (block 418))
Claims 15 and 20: Claims 15 and 20 are directed to a computer program product and method, respectively. Claims 15 and 20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a system. Claims 15 and 20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim 8: The system of claim 1, wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing device to: before executing the resource request, extract, from the source element data, an identity of an authorized source element user of the execution source element; notify the authorized source element user that the execution source element was selected for execution of the resource request; request approval from the authorized source element user to execute the resource request; and if the authorized source element user does not provide approval, determining a replacement source element for use as the execution source element. (Tatti Col. 11, Ln. 5-18 the intelligent auto sweep in system may determine, based on the predicted transaction amount, if an account (e.g., account A1) does not have enough funds (e.g., too low of a balance) to complete the predicted future transaction; additionally, or alternatively, the intelligent auto sweep in system may transfer funds from one or more other accounts associated and/or interlinked with the account (e.g., account A2 and/or A3) to the account, such that, after the transfer, the account has enough funds to complete the predicted future transaction; Col. 12, Ln. 21-26 if the card Cl is interlinked, the method 400 may include determining and/or checking one or more balances in other interlinked accounts, such as accounts A2 and A3 (block 414). The method 400 may include determining whether balances of accounts A2 and/or A3 are high enough to complete the transaction (block 416); Col. 12, Ln. 32-35 if the balances of accounts A2 and/or A3 are high enough to complete the transaction, the method 400 may include sending a message to the customer to confirm an interlink transaction (block 418); Col. 12, Ln. 41-49 if the customer confirms the interlink transaction, the method 400 may include transferring funds (e.g., distributing resources) from account A2 and/or A3 to account A1 (block 420). The method 400 may include crediting an amount in account A1 and debiting the amount from account A2 and/or A3 (block 422). The method 400 may include completing the transaction from account A1 (block 424) and sending a message of the transaction status to the customer (block 408); note that the funds may be pulled from either A2 or A3 thus the replacement source may be either account)
Claim 16: Claim 16 is directed to a computer program product. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 8, which is directed towards a system. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatti (US 11,184,292) in view of Kurian (2018/0308073) further in view of Reed (2022/0188784).
Claim 3: The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a user input device; wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing device to: (Tatti Fig. 3 Col. 9, Ln. 1-9 disclosing the transaction device)
Regarding the following limitation:
receive, from the user input device, a user preference matrix comprising potential resource request parameters and source element selection data elements, each of the source element selection data elements comprising a first user preference and a second user preference; wherein each of the potential resource request parameters data element of the user preference matrix corresponds to a source selection data element of the user preference matrix; and wherein at least the first user preference and the second user preference are determined by: identifying a potential resource request parameter of the user preference matrix that matches one or more of the resource request parameters of the resource request; extracting the first and second user preferences from the corresponding source element selection data element for use as the first and second user preferences for executing the resource request.
Tatti discloses receiving user confirmation or approval to utilize a source element, but does not explicitly disclose receive, from the user input device, a user preference matrix comprising potential resource request parameters and source element selection data elements, each of the source element selection data elements comprising a first user preference and a second user preference; wherein each of the potential resource request parameters data element of the user preference matrix corresponds to a source selection data element of the user preference matrix; and wherein at least the first user preference and the second user preference are determined by: identifying a potential resource request parameter of the user preference matrix that matches one or more of the resource request parameters of the resource request; extracting the first and second user preferences from the corresponding source element selection data element for use as the first and second user preferences for executing the resource request. Reed suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Reed Fig. 3 and ¶0066 disclosing the target repositories being traditional, card, emerging payments; the data flow continues with the disbursement step where the system may be configured to initiate the disbursement process ensure that the user receives the funds via the preferred routing channel at the preferred target repository; ¶0060 the system may be configured to transmit the one or more resource routing channels and one or more target repositories as retrieved from the resource repository and request a user selection of a preferred resource routing channel and a preferred target repository to receive the resource; the system may be configured to receive, from the computing device of the user, a user acknowledgement of the resource transfer and a user selection of the preferred resource routing channel and the preferred target repository to receive the resource; the system may be configured to allow the user to confirm the one or more resource routing channels and the one or more target repositories for informational accuracy before selecting the preferred resource routing channel and the preferred target repository; see also ¶0070-¶0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatti in view of Kurian to include receive, from the user input device, a user preference matrix comprising potential resource request parameters and source element selection data elements, each of the source element selection data elements comprising a first user preference and a second user preference; wherein each of the potential resource request parameters data element of the user preference matrix corresponds to a source selection data element of the user preference matrix; and wherein at least the first user preference and the second user preference are determined by: identifying a potential resource request parameter of the user preference matrix that matches one or more of the resource request parameters of the resource request; extracting the first and second user preferences from the corresponding source element selection data element for use as the first and second user preferences for executing the resource request as taught by Reed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tatti in view of Kurian in order to confirm the one or more resource routing channels and the one or more target repositories for informational accuracy before selecting the preferred resource routing channel and the preferred target repository (see ¶0060 of Reed).
Claims 11 and 19: Claims 11 and 19 are directed to a computer program product and method, respectively. Claims 11 and 19 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a system. Claims 11 and 19 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim 4: The system of claim 3, wherein the step of establishing resource request parameters further comprises: extracting a third data element from the resource request, the third data element comprising a resource request recipient; and establishing the resource request recipient as a resource request parameter. (Tatti Col. 3, Ln. 60-64 A “transaction” or “resource distribution” refers to any communication between a user, a financial institution, and/or another entity (e.g., a merchant) to transfer resources (e.g., funds, credit, and/or the like) for the purchasing or selling of a product; Col. 8, Ln. 16-28 a user (e.g., a customer) may attempt to pay for a transaction with a merchant using a card (e.g., a credit card, a debit card, and/or the like) or another payment vehicle that may be associated with (e.g., linked to) an account. For example, and as shown in an example embodiment 200 of FIG. 2A, the user may have three accounts A1, A2, and A3 and three cards C1, C2, and C3. As shown in FIG. 2A, card C1 may be associated with account A1, such that when the user provides card C1 to a merchant and the merchant attempts to process the transaction based on the card C1, funds from account A1 are used to complete the transaction; Col. 9, Ln. 45-51 the transaction request may then be transmitted to the payment processing system 312. For example, the payment processing system 312 may process the transaction request and information regarding one or more accounts associated with the payment vehicle, complete the transaction with the merchant using funds from one or more accounts associated with the payment vehicle; Col. 10, Ln. 29-35 the customer event hub 318 may include a repository of historical events (e.g., transactions, resource distributions, and/or the like) associated with one or more users (e.g., customers), one or more accounts (e.g., sources), one or more merchants (e.g., entities), one or more payment vehicles (e.g., resource distribution devices), and/or the like, which may collectively be referred to as customer historical transaction data)
Claim 12: Claim 12 is directed to a computer program product. Claim 12 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a system. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Claim 5: The system of claim 3, wherein the step of establishing resource request parameters further comprises: extracting a third data element from the resource request, the third data element comprising a resource request type; and establishing the resource request type as a resource request parameter. (Tatti Col. 9, Ln 10-25 transaction device may generate a transaction request (e.g., a distribution request, a payment request, and/or the like) and transmit the transaction request to a payment gateway; Col. 4, Ln. 36-51 disclosing the various request types)
Claim 13: Claim 13 is directed to a computer program product. Claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a system. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628