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 . Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are pending.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 recite a system (i.e., a machine), claims 9-10, 12-14, and 16 recite a computer program product (i.e., an article of manufacture), and claims 17-18 recite a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-18 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the following abstract idea (claim 1 being representative):
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;
receiving, from a 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;
extracting, from the source element data, an identity of an authorized source element user of the execution source element; and
notifying the authorized source element user after execution of the resource transfer.
The abstract idea highlighted above pertains to utilizing multiple accounts (e.g., checking, savings, etc.) to complete a resource request or transfer and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People and/or Commercial or Legal Interactions), as evidenced by claim features that include 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.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea highlighted above corresponds to Mental Processes, which includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, 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 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: a processing device; a non-transitory device.
Claim 9: a computer program product; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; an apparatus.
Claim 17 recites no additional elements.
The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the steps the of previously identified abstract idea. The combination of the additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis considers all dependent claims as well:
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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 4-6, 8, 12-14, and 16 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.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered. Examiner’s response follows, with applicant’s headings used for consistency.
I. Support for Claim Amendments; II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant is thanked for their amendments overcoming the previous rejections under 35 USC § 112. These are withdrawn.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101; V. The Claims are Patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant comments (brackets indicate portions omitted for brevity):
The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
abstract ideas (methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses and submits that the amended claims are patent eligible.
Indeed, the independent claims now recite, in one form or another […]
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the amended independent claims now recite a specific technical data structure-a “user preference matrix comprising potential resource request parameters and source element selection data elements”-with a defined correspondence between parameters and source selections. The claims further recite an automated lookup mechanism that matches incoming resource request parameters against pre-configured matrix entries to determine which source elements to use. This is not a process that can practically be performed in the human mind-it requires a computer to receive, store, and automatically match parameters within a structured matrix to determine source element preferences in real time.
The claims further recite “extracting, from the source element data, an identity of an authorized source element user of the execution source element” and “notifying the authorized source element user after execution of the resource transfer.” This multi-party notification workflow-where the system identifies the authorized user of the specific source element selected through the automated preference-matching process and provides post-execution notification-imposes meaningful limits on the abstract idea and ties the process to a specific technical implementation.
Thus, and taken as an ordered combination, the claims recite a specific technical solution: receiving a structured user preference matrix, automatically matching resource request parameters to matrix entries, extracting source element preferences, iteratively evaluating source elements against projected completion values, executing the resource transfer, identifying the authorized user of the selected source element, and notifying that user. This ordered combination of steps provides a particular technical implementation that goes beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
While well taken, examiner maintains that 1) an abstract idea is recited; 2) any additional element is a generically recited and merely facilitates the tasks of said abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant’s arguments appear to conflate the abstract idea, identified at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as seen in the following remark: “Thus, and taken as an ordered combination, the claims recite a specific technical solution: receiving a structured user preference matrix, automatically matching resource request parameters to matrix entries, extracting source element preferences, iteratively evaluating source elements against projected completion values, executing the resource transfer, identifying the authorized user of the selected source element, and notifying that user.”
Here, examiner identified an abstract idea that includes (claim 1 being representative):
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;
receiving, from a 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;
extracting, from the source element data, an identity of an authorized source element user of the execution source element; and
notifying the authorized source element user after execution of the resource transfer.
There’s nothing inherently technical about these steps, including the “user preference matrix,” which simply represents a data structure for user preferences. Examiner queries applicant: why couldn’t an administrator accomplish the tasks highlighted above with pen and paper?
The additional elements considered by examiner at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, e.g., a processing device and a non-transitory device, are generic computing components that are used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. The computing elements are, at best, automating a previously manual process. Still, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103; VI. The Claims are Patentable under 35 U.S.C. §103
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant’s amendments and clarifying remarks are persuasive. These rejections are withdrawn.
In particular, Reed does not disclose or suggest “a user preference matrix comprising potential resource request parameters and source element selection data elements” as now recited by amended claims 1, 9, and 17. Instead, Reed discloses a system for centralized resource distribution where a user selects a “preferred resource routing channel” and a “preferred target repository” to receive resources. See, Reed paragraph [0060]. Reed's preferences relate to destination preferences-where and how the user wants to receive incoming funds. This is different from the claimed user preference matrix, which maps potential resource request parameters to source element selection data elements, i.e., which source accounts to draw from based on the characteristics of the resource request.
Furthermore, Reed does not disclose a “matrix” structure where “each of the potential resource request parameters data element of the user preference matrix corresponds to a source selection data element” as recited by the amended claims. Instead, Reed's system retrieves stored user preferences based on user identity, not based on matching resource request parameters to pre-defined source element selections. See, Reed paragraph [0066] (disclosing the lookup that occurs in Reed is based on user identity and not the characteristics of the resource request itself). The claimed invention involves a structured lookup where the system identifies a potential resource request parameter in the matrix that matches the incoming request parameters and then extracts the corresponding source element preferences-a process not disclosed or suggested by Reed. Neither Tatti nor Kurian cures this deficiency and further were not relied on to do so.
Additionally, none of the references, either taken alone or in combination, disclose an “authorized source element user” as described in the claims. Indeed, the amended claims further recite “extracting, from the source element data, an identity of an authorized source element user of the execution source element” and “notifying the authorized source element user after execution of the resource transfer.”
The Office Action previously relied on Tatti (Col. 12, Ln. 21-26 and Col. 12, Ln. 32-35) to disclose the similar limitations from former dependent claims 7, 15, and 20. However, Tatti discloses checking balances in interlinked accounts, not extracting an identity of an authorized user. Moreover, Tatti discloses sending a message to the customer to confirm an interlink transaction before execution, not notifying an authorized source element user after execution of the resource transfer.
Similarly, Reed and Kurian do not cure the deficiencies of Tatti and were not relied on to do so. Reed's disclosure at paragraph [0066] relates to validating and verifying the identity of the user (beneficiary) who is receiving funds, not extracting the identity of an authorized user of the source account from which funds are being drawn. Neither Tatti, Kurian, nor Reed discloses or suggests extracting the identity of the authorized user of the execution source element and notifying that user after execution.
Because the combination of Tatti, Kurian, and Reed – whether taken individually or together – fails to disclose or suggest the user preference matrix limitations and the authorized source element user notification limitations as now recited by amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
Additional search results identified references that are generally pertinent to the technical field, though they fail to disclose all limitations of the claim:
US 20200167548, which teaches: [0006] An objective of embodiments of the specification is to provide a method, apparatus, and system for resource transfer. During resource transfer, whether a target user is an authorized user of a target electronic account is verified by an identity recognition based on a front face image and a side face image of the target user, and resource transfer can be carried out without entering a password by a user, thereby avoiding a situation that resource transfer cannot be carried out because the user forgets the password. In addition, whether the target user is a live user is verified by a liveness detection based on the front face image and the side face image, avoiding the problem of security risks in electronic accounts caused by face images of users being acquired by others, thereby improving the security of the electronic accounts. Moreover, more feature information is added by combining the front face image and the side face image during the liveness detection and the identity recognition, thereby improving the accuracy of the liveness detection and the identity recognition, and further protecting the security of users' electronic accounts.
US 20210243191, which teaches: [0059] Next, as shown in block 210, the process flow includes overriding the denial of the distribution of the resources from the resource repository of the user to the first entity based on at least the resource distribution decision matrix. In this regard, the system may be configured to determine that while the operational decision rule indicates the denial of distribution of resources to the specific resource distribution recipient entity, the resource distribution decision matrix indicates an exception. Accordingly, the system may be configured to override the denial indicated in the operational decision rules with the resource distribution decision matrix. Similarly, in some embodiments, if the operational decision rules indicate allowing the distribution of resources from the resource repository of the user to the resource distribution recipient entity, the system may be configured to override the allowance of the distribution of the resources from the resource distribution repository of the user to the first entity if the resource distribution decision matrix indicates otherwise.
US 20230043702, which teaches: [0492] In embodiments, to enable the crypto savings plan, an employee may open and maintain a deposit account (the “fiat currency account”) with a bank, such as a regulated financial service provider. The employee may also authorize the bank to debit their fiat currency account and transfer their external deposits to the platform 2200 on a recurring basis (the “recurring transfers”) to fund the cryptocurrency purchases. The platform 2200 may function as a program partner with the bank, however the bank may not perform cryptocurrency custody or execution services, and such services may be performed exclusively by the platform 2200.
“Multi-Party Payment Channel Network Based on Smart Contract” (NPL attached), which teaches: Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are severely limited in transaction throughput and latency. A promising solution to this issue is a payment channel, which allows trust-free payments between two peers without exhausting the resources of the blockchain. A linked payment channel network (PCN) enables payments between two peers through a series of intermediate nodes that forward and charge for the payments. However, most of existing proposals only use the shortest path as the path of the transaction, which causes the frequently reused channels to be exhausted quickly. In addition, most of existing PCNs are almost only designed for payments between two parties, which leads to limited application scenarios. When multiple payments use the same intermediate channel, the two-party PCNs cannot achieve simultaneous payments. In this paper, we propose a multi-party payment channel (MPC) network, a payment channel proposal that supports multiple payments using the same intermediate channel simultaneously, thereby greatly expanding the application scenarios of payment channels. In addition, our channel selection and transaction conversion strategies can also increase the success rate of transactions. We implement MPC network in the simulated blockchain network and lightning network based on Truffle, and a large number of experiments verify the effectiveness of our solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200167548, which teaches: [0006] An objective of embodiments of the specification is to provide a method, apparatus, and system for resource transfer. During resource transfer, whether a target user is an authorized user of a target electronic account is verified by an identity recognition based on a front face image and a side face image of the target user, and resource transfer can be carried out without entering a password by a user, thereby avoiding a situation that resource transfer cannot be carried out because the user forgets the password. In addition, whether the target user is a live user is verified by a liveness detection based on the front face image and the side face image, avoiding the problem of security risks in electronic accounts caused by face images of users being acquired by others, thereby improving the security of the electronic accounts. Moreover, more feature information is added by combining the front face image and the side face image during the liveness detection and the identity recognition, thereby improving the accuracy of the liveness detection and the identity recognition, and further protecting the security of users' electronic accounts.
US 20210243191, which teaches: [0059] Next, as shown in block 210, the process flow includes overriding the denial of the distribution of the resources from the resource repository of the user to the first entity based on at least the resource distribution decision matrix. In this regard, the system may be configured to determine that while the operational decision rule indicates the denial of distribution of resources to the specific resource distribution recipient entity, the resource distribution decision matrix indicates an exception. Accordingly, the system may be configured to override the denial indicated in the operational decision rules with the resource distribution decision matrix. Similarly, in some embodiments, if the operational decision rules indicate allowing the distribution of resources from the resource repository of the user to the resource distribution recipient entity, the system may be configured to override the allowance of the distribution of the resources from the resource distribution repository of the user to the first entity if the resource distribution decision matrix indicates otherwise.
US 20230043702, which teaches: [0492] In embodiments, to enable the crypto savings plan, an employee may open and maintain a deposit account (the “fiat currency account”) with a bank, such as a regulated financial service provider. The employee may also authorize the bank to debit their fiat currency account and transfer their external deposits to the platform 2200 on a recurring basis (the “recurring transfers”) to fund the cryptocurrency purchases. The platform 2200 may function as a program partner with the bank, however the bank may not perform cryptocurrency custody or execution services, and such services may be performed exclusively by the platform 2200.
“Multi-Party Payment Channel Network Based on Smart Contract” (NPL attached), which teaches: Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are severely limited in transaction throughput and latency. A promising solution to this issue is a payment channel, which allows trust-free payments between two peers without exhausting the resources of the blockchain. A linked payment channel network (PCN) enables payments between two peers through a series of intermediate nodes that forward and charge for the payments. However, most of existing proposals only use the shortest path as the path of the transaction, which causes the frequently reused channels to be exhausted quickly. In addition, most of existing PCNs are almost only designed for payments between two parties, which leads to limited application scenarios. When multiple payments use the same intermediate channel, the two-party PCNs cannot achieve simultaneous payments. In this paper, we propose a multi-party payment channel (MPC) network, a payment channel proposal that supports multiple payments using the same intermediate channel simultaneously, thereby greatly expanding the application scenarios of payment channels. In addition, our channel selection and transaction conversion strategies can also increase the success rate of transactions. We implement MPC network in the simulated blockchain network and lightning network based on Truffle, and a large number of experiments verify the effectiveness of our solution.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights