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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated December 23, 2025:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-12, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 4-7 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue that Pearce fails to teach that sharing permissions are intended for “sharing attribute data”. However, while Applicants cited paragraphs [0063] and [0090] as supposedly supporting the newly added feature, the cited paragraphs fail to clearly explain what this “attribute data” is such as to distinguish from teachings of Pearce. Therefore, under the BRI, “sharing attribute data” can mean providing the third-party system with an access to the selected checking account by sharing the account number (col. 6 line 65 to col. 7 line 16). It is further noted that “for sharing attribute data” is a statement of intended use and does not require to actually share attribute data.
Applicants argue at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that “in Applicant's amended claim 1, for example, "sharing permissions for sharing attribute data," may refer to authorization to share a user's data. For example, the data may include identifiers, temporal data, and permissions data”. Examiner confirms that this is consistent with teachings of Pearce that allow the customer to provide authorization to share a user’s checking account information with the third-party system by toggling the slider 312 to activate or deactivate access to the account. Therefore, reliance on Pearce is maintained.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pearce et al. (US Patent 11,615,402 B1).
As to claim 1, Pearce teaches a computing system comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1); a communications module coupled to the processor (Fig. 1); and
a memory coupled to the processor (Fig. 1), the memory storing instructions (col. 10 line 57 to col. 11 line 20) that, when executed, configure the processor to:
provide, in an account view of an account, a selectable option to manage sharing permissions for sharing attribute data [making selections allows the customer to provide the third-party system with an access to the checking account by sharing the account number] (col. 6 line 65 to col. 7 line 16) for third-party systems defined for the account [providing an option to select an account from the drop-down box 308] (Fig. 3 col. 6 lines 39-64);
receive an indication via the selectable option to manage the sharing permissions for sharing attribute data of the third-party systems [customer selecting a checking account] (Fig. 3 col. 6 lines 39-64);
in response to receiving the indication, display a listing including only the third-party systems for which the sharing permissions for sharing attribute data for the account have been previously configured [displaying a listing 310 of connected account access channels, where the listing 310 identifies each channel that the customer has previously configured to access the checking account] (Fig. 3 col. 6 lines 39-64), the listing having one or more interface elements for receiving a listing instruction in association with the listing [a slider toggle 310 for activating/deactivating the channel access] (Fig. 3 col. 6 lines 39-64);
receive the listing instruction via the one or more interface elements [customer interacting with the slider toggle (Fig. 3 col. 6 lines 65-67); and
in response to receiving the listing instruction, provide a management interface related to the listing [changing the position of the slider toggle on the display from Y to N or from N to Y depending on the user interaction command] (Fig. 3 col. 7 lines 1-16).
As to claim 2, Pearce teaches that the instructions further configure the processor to display a selectable icon for each of the third-party systems in the listing for which the sharing permissions has been previously configured [“Y” and “N” icons that are part of the slider toggle] (Fig. 3), the one or more interface elements comprising the selectable icons [each access channel having the slider toggle 312 that comprise the “Y” and “N” icons] (Fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Pearce teaches that in response to receiving the listing instruction via one of the selectable icons, the instructions further configure the processor to provide the management interface with options for managing the sharing permissions for the third-party system associated with the one of the selectable icons [providing add and delete buttons 312 and 314 for adding new channels and deleting existing channels] (col. 7 lines 17-32).
As to claim 8, Pearce teaches that the instructions further configure the processor to query a database to retrieve the sharing permissions for the third-party systems defined for the account [accessing account information from the financial institution (col. 3 line 48 to col. 4 line 2; col. 6 lines 18-38).
As to claim 9, Pearce teaches that the instructions further configure the processor to receive a given sharing permission of a given third-party system defined for the account, and save the given sharing permission of the given third-party system to the database in association with the account (col. 9 lines 25-39).
As to claim 10, Pearce teaches a computer-implemented method comprising method steps, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claims 11-12, Pearce teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding system claims 2-3 above.
As to claims 17-18, Pearce teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding system claims 8-9 above.
As to claim 19, Pearce teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform the method steps as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As to claim 20, Pearce teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding system claim 8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in 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.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al. in view of Sarkar (US 2016/0072810 A1).
As to claims 4 and 13, Pearce teaches all the elements except that the listing is ordered based on one or more of: a time at which the sharing permission of each third-party system was defined; a risk score defined for each third-party system; and an amount of data being shared according to the sharing permission of each third-party system.
Sarkar is directed to a system and method for provisioning applications (abstract). In particular, Sarkar teaches that a listing of applications is ordered based on one or more of: a time at which the sharing permission of each third-party system was defined; a risk score defined for each third-party system; and an amount of data being shared according to the sharing permission of each third-party system [applications are organized based on different levels of use permissions] (par. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Pierce by having the listing of channels 310 in Fig. 3 ordered based on one or more of: a time at which the sharing permission of each third-party system was defined; a risk score defined for each third-party system; and an amount of data being shared according to the sharing permission of each third-party system in order to allow the user to organize the channels 310 according to different divisions, different function types, different levels of permissions and other well known criterias for sorting entities in a listing (par. [0025] in Sarkar).
As to claims 5 and 14, Pearce teaches that the instructions further configure the processor to display the listing with all of the third-party systems for which sharing the permissions for the account have been previously configured (Fig. 3).
As to claims 6 and 15, Pearce teaches that the instructions further configure the processor to display the listing with a subset of the third-party systems for which the sharing permissions for the account have been previously configured (Fig. 3).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al. in view of Sarkar and in further view of Zhu et al. (US 2024/0179364 A1).
As to claims 7 and 16, Pearce in view of Sarkar teaches all the elements except that the one or more interface elements further comprises a selectable expansion option, and in response to receiving the listing instruction via the selectable expansion option, the instructions further configure the processor to provide the management interface with all of the third-party systems for which the sharing permissions for the account have been previously configured.
Zhu teaches providing a selectable expansion option [“All” entry presented in the display region] (Fig. 13), and in response to receiving the listing instruction via the selectable expansion option, the instructions further configure the processor to provide the management interface with all of the third-party systems for which the sharing permissions for the account have been previously configured [upon selecting the “All” entry, displaying all of the users applications in Fig. 14] (par. [0164]-[0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Pearce in view of Sarkar by having a selectable expansion option, and in response to receiving the listing instruction via the selectable expansion option, the instructions further configure the processor to provide the management interface with all of the third-party systems for which the sharing permissions for the account have been previously configured in order to display all of the channels 310 of Pearce that might not fit on the original screen of the mobile device of Pearce, the option of “display more” or “display all” that was notoriously old and well known in the art before the invention was filed.
Conclusion
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 OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights