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
The amendment filed January 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2; and claim 16, line 2, “a unified identity” should read --the unified identity--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-11 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), and Claims 12-20 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving, by an electronic system from a first user device, via a wireless communication network, a registration request to register, with the electronic system, a first user account with a first institution; registering, by the electronic system, the first user account by generating a first account identifier associated with the first user account and associating a first institution identifier with the first user account, wherein the first institution identifier is associated with the first institution; determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on a data transmission interaction between the first user device and a second user device, that the first user account was involved in fraudulent activity; in response to determining that the first user account was involved in fraudulent activity, identifying, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the first account identifier, the first institution identifier associated with the first user account when the first user account was registered; encrypting, by the electronic system, the institution identifier to an encrypted institution identifier and the first account identifier to an encrypted first account identifier; transmitting, by the electronic system to an account database, via a secure virtual communications network, a request for identification information associated with the first user account, wherein the request includes at least one of the encrypted institution identifier or the encrypted first account identifier; receiving, by the electronic system from the account database, identification information associated with the first user account; determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; associating, by the electronic system, the user with the first institution identifier, and the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier to generate a unified identity of accounts and institutions associated with the user; and performing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the unified identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “electronic system”, “wireless communication network”, “device”, “data transmission”, “encrypting, by the electronic system, the institution identifier to an encrypted institution identifier and the first account identifier to an encrypted first account identifier”, “secure virtual communications network”, “encrypted”, and “database” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical business relations, because entities including a user and an institution interact with each other for performing a responsive action using an account of the user associated with the institution.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computer-implemented method comprising:”, “electronic system”, “wireless communication network”, “device”, “data transmission”, “encrypting, by the electronic system, the institution identifier to an encrypted institution identifier and the first account identifier to an encrypted first account identifier”, “secure virtual communications network”, “encrypted”, and “database”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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.
Under the Step 2B, 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12:
Claims 2 and 12 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving, by an electronic system, via a wireless communication channel, a notification that a first user account associated with a first user device was involved in a noteworthy data transmission interaction with a second user account associated with a second user device, wherein: the notification includes a first account identifier associated with the first user account when the first account was registered with the electronic system; and the first user account was previously registered with the electronic system as being associated with a first institution; determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the first account identifier, a first institution identifier associated with the first institution; transmitting, by the electronic system to an account database, via a secure virtual communications network, a request for identification information associated with the first user account, wherein the request includes at least one of the first account identifier or the first institution identifier; receiving, by the electronic system from the account database, the identification information; determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; associating, by the electronic system, the user with the first institution identifier, and the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier to generate a unified identity of accounts and institutions associated with the user; and executing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the unified identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “electronic system”, “wireless communication network”, “device”, “data transmission”, “secure virtual communications network”, and “database” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical business relations, because entities including a user and an institution interact with each other for performing a responsive action using an account of the user associated with the institution.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computer-implemented method comprising:”, “A system, comprising: one or more computing devices; and memory storing instructions, the instructions being executable by the one or more computing devices, wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to:”, “electronic system”, “wireless communication network”, “device”, “data transmission”, “secure virtual communications network”, and “database”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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.
Under the Step 2B, 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 3-11 and 13-20:
Dependent claims 4-5, 8, 14-15, 18, and 20 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 16-17, and 19 include additional limitations, for example, “encrypting” (Claims 3 and 13); “system” (Claims 6 and 16); “database” (Claims 7 and 17); “device” (Claims 9 and 19); “data transmission” (Claim 10); and “system” (Claim 11), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 3-11 and 13-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 20220383325 A1) in view of Novick (US 20200273040 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoffman teaches A computer-implemented method comprising (Hoffman: Abstract):
receiving, by an electronic system from a first user device, via a wireless communication network, a registration request to register, with the electronic system, a first user account with a first institution; registering, by the electronic system, the first user account by generating a first account identifier associated with the first user account and associating a first institution identifier with the first user account, wherein the first institution identifier is associated with the first institution (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0004, 0008, 0026, 0032-0033, 0051, 0060, 0016, 0669 teach(es) registering a user, wherein a rule-module is registered to a user within a rule-module nexus, said registered rule-module further comprising a pattern data associated with an execution command; accessing financial accounts, wherein upon the verification platform verifying the user is authorized to access the rule-module nexus, the rule-module nexus enables access to a plurality of proprietary financial accounts of the user for completing the financial transaction; an Account Identifier comprises… a code identifying an account issuer); determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on a data transmission interaction between the first user device and a second user device, that the first user account was involved in fraudulent activity (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0477, 0686, 0790 teach(es) the analytics further comprises any of the following: a pattern of fraudulent use of the user's payment-related data; a pattern of product purchasing by the user; a pattern of the user's preferences for enabling a payment transaction; a pattern of payment account selection by the user; a pattern of rewards redemption by the user; a pattern of user geographic locations of the user; a pattern retailer locations; a pattern of costs in processing a payment transaction; a pattern by the user of viewing products or services on the web; a pattern by the user of viewing website content on the web; the User Interface Apparatus and Transaction Terminal are conjoined without being fully integrated, the two devices each remain operationally and functionally separate from each other, but can communicate to exchange data); in response to determining that the first user account was involved in fraudulent activity, identifying, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the first account identifier, the first institution identifier associated with the first user account when the first user account was registered (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0927, 0530, 0669, 0018 teach(es) the Acquirer (or Acquirer Processor or Acquiring Bank) is a financial institution that accepts credit and or debit card payments for products or services on behalf of a merchant, thereby processing the transaction information, coordinating and updating its accounts, and then relays the sales data directly to the Account Issuer, which actually authorizes the sale in accordance with the User's Financial Account; ; an Account Identifier comprises… a code identifying an account issuer); encrypting, by the electronic system, the institution identifier to an encrypted institution identifier and the first account identifier to an encrypted first account identifier (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0653, 0800 teach(es) MDP (Message Decrypt Platform): A software platform in the RMN that encrypts and decrypts packets from or destined to an UIA device; The NAT may then encrypt the authentication code. In particular, encryption may be done by authentication circuit, which may receive the authentication code and encrypt the code prior to providing the encrypted authentication code to protocol/sequence controller); transmitting, by the electronic system to an account database, via a secure virtual communications network, a request for identification information associated with the first user account, wherein the request includes at least one of the encrypted institution identifier or the encrypted first account identifier; receiving, by the electronic system from the account database, identification information associated with the first user account (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0845, 0719, 0800, 0728, 0686, 0027 teach(es) The potential User may then be identified by the RMN based on an reverse-lookup of the potential User's phone number provided via ANI, wherein the RMN can perform an automatic match of the potential User's name, address, and phone number, to determine the identity of the potential User, and automatically research public databases to pull data about the potential User for identity confirmation; a Platform may include local or remote database(s) for storing, associating, and retrieving information for accessing a User Account Registry, Rule Module Nexus, and/or Verification Platform); …; associating, by the electronic system, the user with the first institution identifier, and the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier to generate a unified identity of accounts and institutions associated with the user (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0019, 0046, 0059, 0049, 0158, 0857 teach(es) the verification platform electronically compares the user's bid unique user code with a user's registration unique user code, and makes a matching determination for verifying the user's authority to access the rule-module nexus; intra-account transfer transaction between financial accounts of the user without a buyer-seller exchange; intra-Financial Account transfers between or among Financial Accounts owned by same user, wherein there is no buyer-seller financial transaction or payment processing as may required with a standard purchase).
However, Hoffman does not explicitly teach determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; …; and performing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the [unified] identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier.
Novick from same or similar field of endeavor teaches determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; …; and performing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the [unified] identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0072, 0024, 0027, 0041, 0048, 0067 teach(es) a Mule Account/Money Laundering Account Detector module, which may operate by taking into account one or more parameters or conditions or detected observations, for example, one or more of the following: (1) detecting of an access to a bank account via a Remote Access tool that allows a first user to utilize a first computer in order to remotely control a second computer from which the access to the bank server is performed; methods for money laundering purposes (e.g., through or via a “mule” bank account); a Mule Account Profile Builder unit 164 analyzes all the monitored and logged data for each bank account that is already known to be a mule bank account, and deduces or generates one or more parameters, conditions and/or formulas that enable the system to identify other bank accounts as Mule accounts).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Novick for determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; …; and performing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the unified identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier.
There is motivation to combine Novick into Hoffman because Novick’s teachings of a pre-defined pattern or playbook that is pre-defined in the system as indicative to the bank account being a Mule (or fraudulent, or money laundering) bank account would facilitate anti-money-laundering or anti-fraudulent activity (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0041, 0048).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Hoffman teaches A computer-implemented method comprising (Hoffman: Abstract): A system, comprising: one or more computing devices; and memory storing instructions, the instructions being executable by the one or more computing devices, wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to (Hoffman: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0709, 0711):
receiving, by an electronic system, via a wireless communication channel, a notification that a first user account associated with a first user device was involved in a noteworthy data transmission interaction with a second user account associated with a second user device, wherein: the notification includes a first account identifier associated with the first user account when the first account was registered with the electronic system; and the first user account was previously registered with the electronic system as being associated with a first institution (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0477, 0686, 0790, 0016, 0669 teach(es) the analytics further comprises any of the following: a pattern of fraudulent use of the user's payment-related data; a pattern of product purchasing by the user; a pattern of the user's preferences for enabling a payment transaction; a pattern of payment account selection by the user; a pattern of rewards redemption by the user; a pattern of user geographic locations of the user; a pattern retailer locations; a pattern of costs in processing a payment transaction; a pattern by the user of viewing products or services on the web; a pattern by the user of viewing website content on the web; the User Interface Apparatus and Transaction Terminal are conjoined without being fully integrated, the two devices each remain operationally and functionally separate from each other, but can communicate to exchange data; an Account Identifier comprises… a code identifying an account issuer); determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the first account identifier, a first institution identifier associated with the first institution (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0927, 0530 teach(es) the Acquirer (or Acquirer Processor or Acquiring Bank) is a financial institution that accepts credit and or debit card payments for products or services on behalf of a merchant, thereby processing the transaction information, coordinating and updating its accounts, and then relays the sales data directly to the Account Issuer, which actually authorizes the sale in accordance with the User's Financial Account); transmitting, by the electronic system to an account database, via a secure virtual communications network, a request for identification information associated with the first user account, wherein the request includes at least one of the first account identifier or the first institution identifier; receiving, by the electronic system from the account database, the identification information (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0845, 0719, 0800, 0728, 0686, 0027 teach(es) The potential User may then be identified by the RMN based on an reverse-lookup of the potential User's phone number provided via ANI, wherein the RMN can perform an automatic match of the potential User's name, address, and phone number, to determine the identity of the potential User, and automatically research public databases to pull data about the potential User for identity confirmation; a Platform may include local or remote database(s) for storing, associating, and retrieving information for accessing a User Account Registry, Rule Module Nexus, and/or Verification Platform); …; associating, by the electronic system, the user with the first institution identifier, and the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier to generate a unified identity of accounts and institutions associated with the user (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0019, 0046, 0059, 0049, 0158, 0857 teach(es) the verification platform electronically compares the user's bid unique user code with a user's registration unique user code, and makes a matching determination for verifying the user's authority to access the rule-module nexus; intra-account transfer transaction between financial accounts of the user without a buyer-seller exchange; intra-Financial Account transfers between or among Financial Accounts owned by same user, wherein there is no buyer-seller financial transaction or payment processing as may required with a standard purchase).
However, Hoffman does not explicitly teach determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; …; and executing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the unified identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier.
Novick from same or similar field of endeavor teaches determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; …; and executing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the unified identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0072, 0024, 0027, 0041, 0048, 0067 teach(es) a Mule Account/Money Laundering Account Detector module, which may operate by taking into account one or more parameters or conditions or detected observations, for example, one or more of the following: (1) detecting of an access to a bank account via a Remote Access tool that allows a first user to utilize a first computer in order to remotely control a second computer from which the access to the bank server is performed; methods for money laundering purposes (e.g., through or via a “mule” bank account); a Mule Account Profile Builder unit 164 analyzes all the monitored and logged data for each bank account that is already known to be a mule bank account, and deduces or generates one or more parameters, conditions and/or formulas that enable the system to identify other bank accounts as Mule accounts).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Novick for determining, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the identification information, at least one of a second account identifier or a second institution identifier associated with the first user account; …; and executing, by the electronic system, based at least in part on the unified identity, a responsive action, wherein the responsive action includes denying a future registration request that requests registration of a second user account with the first institution identifier, or the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier.
There is motivation to combine Novick into Hoffman because Novick’s teachings of a pre-defined pattern or playbook that is pre-defined in the system as indicative to the bank account being a Mule (or fraudulent, or money laundering) bank account would facilitate anti-money-laundering or anti-fraudulent activity (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0041, 0048).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; and Hoffman further teaches further comprising, prior to sending the request, encrypting the request (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0653, 0800 teach(es) MDP (Message Decrypt Platform): A software platform in the RMN that encrypts and decrypts packets from or destined to an UIA device; The NAT may then encrypt the authentication code. In particular, encryption may be done by authentication circuit, which may receive the authentication code and encrypt the code prior to providing the encrypted authentication code to protocol/sequence controller).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; and Hoffman further teaches further comprising: registering the first user account, wherein registering the first user account includes creating the account identifier associated with the first user account; and receiving the institution identifier during registration (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0004, 0008, 0026, 0032-0033, 0051, 0060 teach(es) registering a user, wherein a rule-module is registered to a user within a rule-module nexus, said registered rule-module further comprising a pattern data associated with an execution command; accessing financial accounts, wherein upon the verification platform verifying the user is authorized to access the rule-module nexus, the rule-module nexus enables access to a plurality of proprietary financial accounts of the user for completing the financial transaction).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 14 above; and Hoffman further teaches wherein registering the first entity includes sending a second request to the first entity for consent to receive and send data regarding the first entity (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0841 teach(es) With the User's consent, the RMN pulls and displays a credit report comprising User's operative Financial Accounts, whereby the User may indicate which of said Financial Accounts are to be registered with the UAR).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; and Hoffman further teaches further comprising determining a unified identity of the first user account by comparing the identification information with stored identifying data or institution system data (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0019, 0046, 0059 teach(es) the verification platform electronically compares the user's bid unique user code with a user's registration unique user code, and makes a matching determination for verifying the user's authority to access the rule-module nexus).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; and Hoffman further teaches wherein transmitting the request includes transmitting the request for at least one of a stored account identifier or a stored institution identifier stored by the account database (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0845, 0719, 0800, 0728, 0686, 0027 teach(es) The potential User may then be identified by the RMN based on an reverse-lookup of the potential User's phone number provided via ANI, wherein the RMN can perform an automatic match of the potential User's name, address, and phone number, to determine the identity of the potential User, and automatically research public databases to pull data about the potential User for identity confirmation; a Platform may include local or remote database(s) for storing, associating, and retrieving information for accessing a User Account Registry, Rule Module Nexus, and/or Verification Platform).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the responsive action includes at least one of: freezing the first user account; banning the first user account; or cancelling the first user account.
Novick further teaches wherein the responsive action includes at least one of: freezing the first user account; banning the first user account; or cancelling the first user account (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0085 teach(es) upon estimation or determination that a bank account is used as a Mule bank account and/or for money laundering and/or for terror funding, the system or method may automatically trigger and/or initiate and/or perform one or more pre-defined operations, for example: generate a notification or alert or alarm to a system administrator and/or a bank representative and/or a regulatory agency and/or a law enforcement agency; generate or place a temporary or fixed “freeze” or “hold” on the account; block or cancel or reverse one or more transactions (e.g., wire transfer) that were performed and/or that are pending and/or that were scheduled to be performed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Hoffman and Novick to incorporate the teachings of Novick for wherein the responsive action includes at least one of: freezing the first user account; banning the first user account; or cancelling the first user account.
There is motivation to combine Novick into the combination of Hoffman and Novick because Novick’s teachings of freezing a bank account would facilitate anti-money-laundering or anti-fraudulent activity (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0085).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the responsive action includes transmitting a notification to an institution device associated with the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier that the first user account includes a history of fraudulent activity.
Novick further teaches wherein the responsive action includes transmitting a notification to an institution device associated with the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier that the first user account includes a history of fraudulent activity (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0085, as stated above with respect to claims 8 and 18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Hoffman and Novick to incorporate the teachings of Novick for wherein the responsive action includes transmitting a notification to an institution device associated with the at least one of the second account identifier or the second institution identifier that the first user account includes a history of fraudulent activity.
There is motivation to combine Novick into the combination of Hoffman and Novick because Novick’s teachings of freezing a bank account would facilitate anti-money-laundering or anti-fraudulent activity (Novick: Paragraph(s) 0085).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 above; and Hoffman further teaches further comprising determining that the noteworthy data transmission interaction includes a fraudulent transaction (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0477, 0790 teach(es) the analytics further comprises any of the following: a pattern of fraudulent use of the user's payment-related data; a pattern of product purchasing by the user; a pattern of the user's preferences for enabling a payment transaction; a pattern of payment account selection by the user; a pattern of rewards redemption by the user; a pattern of user geographic locations of the user; a pattern retailer locations; a pattern of costs in processing a payment transaction; a pattern by the user of viewing products or services on the web; a pattern by the user of viewing website content on the web).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hoffman and Novick teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; and Hoffman further teaches further comprising determining that the first institution identifier is associated with an institution account associated with a registered institution system (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0927, 0362 teach(es) the Acquirer (or Acquirer Processor or Acquiring Bank) is a financial institution that accepts credit and or debit card payments for products or services on behalf of a merchant, thereby processing the transaction information, coordinating and updating its accounts, and then relays the sales data directly to the Account Issuer, which actually authorizes the sale in accordance with the User's Financial Account; accessing a plurality of proprietary financial accounts, wherein upon a verification platform verifying a party is authorized to access the online user account registry, the rule-module nexus invokes a rule-module governing the party's access to a plurality of proprietary financial accounts within the online user account registry), wherein transmitting the request includes transmitting the request based at least in part on the first institution identifier being associated with the institution account (Hoffman: Paragraph(s) 0927, 0931 teach(es) The authorization then is submitted back to the Acquirer, which informs the merchant (or the payee) that the sale, or transaction, has been approved. In this embodiment, the payee may be the Acquirer via a Payee Depository Financial Account may be designated by the Acquirer as a financial account of the Acquirer, from which the Acquirer subsequently disburses funds to the merchant).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “the amended claims improve the technical field of data transmission by reducing network bandwidth consumption through the targeted, automated denial of registration attempts of accounts/institutions associated with a previously-flagged user account,” examiner respectfully argues that processing data or information such as account/institution identifiers, generating a unified identity, and denying future registration requests using the unified identities can be performed manually by people, especially when the additional elements including electronic system, user devices, wireless communication network, account database, secure virtual communications network, and their interactions are recited without technical details and contexts.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103, amended claim(s) 1-20 have been considered, and rejected as stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kruse (US 11775977 B1) teaches Systems And Methods For Dynamic Authorization Of Virtual Bank Account Transactions.
Zhang (US 20230107703 A1) teaches Systems And Methods For Automated Fraud Detection.
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 CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights