DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 10/20/25.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are currently pending.
Claims 21-40 are rejected as set forth below.
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 Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 31, 38 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22, 32, 39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 31, 38 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is maintained.
Applicant contends Deb fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first preset time period is a subset of the second preset time period”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deb teaches a customer’s payment vehicle, such as a credit card, being charged to settle a customer’s account with the merchant when a threshold resource value, such as a predetermined number of minutes (i.e. the first preset time period), is reached ([0027]). Deb further teaches a credit card statement ([0042]). Credit card statements are aggregated on a monthly basis (i.e. the second preset time period). A predetermined number of minutes is a subset of a month: there are 43,800 minutes in a month.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 21, 31, 38, the limitations “transmitting resources for the total value from a second account to a plurality of recipient accounts associated with a second sub-system based on a first preset time period and/or a pre-determined threshold”, “aggregating the transmitted resources based on a second preset time period, wherein the first preset time period is a subset of the second preset time period” render the scope of the claim indefinite. Since the first limitation can be interpreted as transmitting resources based on only the pre-determined threshold, i.e. a dollar amount, the second limitation is unclear in the instance in which there is no first preset time period.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
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 21-24, 26-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20050144099 to Deb in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20160300198 to Guido and United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200366656 to Barnett
As per claims 21, 31, 38, Deb teaches:
A system comprising: one or more processors of a first sub-system; a data storage storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, over a communication network, data associated with a user and a plurality of activities; determining a total value for a plurality of activities associated with a first account of an access device associated with a user; transmitting resources for the total value from a second account to a plurality of recipient accounts associated with a second sub-system based on a first preset time period and/or a pre-determined threshold; ([0027], “The present invention provides for a system and method that permit an online merchant or service provider to charge (e.g., debit or bill) a customer's payment instrument (e.g., bank account, credit card, debit card, credit balance on user account for merchant) when the customer has purchased a set value of goods. The set value of the goods corresponds to a threshold resource value. For example, a set value of goods, or threshold value, can be $10 of products or services. Thus, when the customer has purchased at least $10 of the product or service in either one event (e.g., transaction) or over a number of events (e.g., when accumulating the events), the designated payment vehicle is charged to settle the account with the merchant. Alternatively, the resource value can also correspond to a consumable unit such as minutes, points, units, and the like. Moreover, events can be stored and/or tracked over any period of time until a corresponding threshold resource value is reached, at which time payment is required and requested for such events.”)
aggregating the transmitted resources based on a second preset time period, wherein the first preset time period is a subset of the second preset time period; ([0027], [0042], “Furthermore, bank or credit card transaction fees and/or overhead costs can be minimized since purchases are consolidated (e.g., consolidated purchases results in fewer credit card transactions and thus fewer credit card fees). Similarly, line item purchases on a credit card statement, for example, can be reduced by way of consolidating the transactions.”, The Examiner notes that credit card statements aggregate charges on a preset time, i.e. a monthly basis. The threshold resource value such as a predetermined number of minutes (i.e. the first preset time period) is a subset of a month (i.e. the second preset time period): there are 43,800 minutes in a month.)
Deb does not explicitly teach, but Guido teaches:
transmitting a value equivalent to the aggregated transmitted resources from the first account to the second account based on the second preset time period; generating a presentation in a user interface of a device associated with the authenticated user regarding the transmitted value from the first account. (Fig 5A, [0081], “As illustrated in FIG. 5A, the fund transfer management module 300 is configured to allow the customer/user to request to transfer funds to their respective credit account for the purpose of making a payment (i.e., me-to-me fund transfer from a checking account to a credit account). In automated response to the customer/user selecting the transfer type shown in FIG. 5A, the fund transfer management module 300 is configured to display, within the user interface, transfer options that are specific to the selected transfer type. In such embodiments of the invention, the user-interface/digital form may be configured such that the customer can specify parameters such as the transfer amount, the frequency at which the transfer should occur and the date on which the transfer should be processed and/or initiated. To this extent, the form may include an amount input field (e.g., polling buttons) 324 for allowing the customer to specify an amount to transfer and/or pay, a “Frequency” input box (e.g., text box, drop down menu, and the like) 328 for allowing the customer to specify an account from which the funds should be transferred, and a “Transfer Date” input box (e.g., text box, drop down menu, and the like) 330 for allowing the customer to specify a date on which the funds should be transferred.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Guido to the known invention of Deb would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such credit card settlement features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to transmit a value equivalent to the aggregated transmitted resources from the first account to the second account based on the second preset time period and generate a presentation in a user interface of a device associated with the authenticated user regarding the transmitted value from the first account results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the user can easily set up a payment to settle outstanding credit card balances via a graphical user interface, thus improving the overall user convenience of the invention.
Deb as modified does not explicitly teach, but Barnett teaches:
processing the data to identify sensitive information and substituting the sensitive information with tokens; encrypting, via an encryption protocol, the tokens to generate encrypted tokens; and transmitting the encrypted tokens for rendering a service. ([0089], “Aspects of the present disclosure generally relate to a sole custodian system for collecting and tokenizing sensitive data, and for sharing sensitive data in an obfuscated form. In at least one aspect, having a single system remotely manage and store iframe data and manage tokenization and/or encryption information may improve data security and processing efficiency while reducing the likelihood of original data being exposed to unauthorized, fraudulent, and/or adverse parties. In one or more embodiments, the present systems and processes allow for (de)tokenization, encryption, and/or detokenization to be provided as a service to one or more users.”)
an authenticated user; ([0116], In at least one embodiment, the system 101 transmits login credentials to each added entity, the login credentials allowing the entity to sign in to the system 101 and access the virtual terminal 118.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Barnett to the known invention of Deb as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such authentication features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include the steps of processing the data to identify sensitive information and substituting the sensitive information with tokens, encrypting, via an encryption protocol, the tokens to generate encrypted tokens, transmitting the encrypted tokens for rendering a service, and authenticating the user results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the sensitive information is protected and the user is authorized before accessing the service, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
As per claims 22, 32, 39, Barnett teaches:
wherein the data include predefined values and/or one or more identifiers unique to the device associated with the user; ([0116])
As per claims 23, 33, 40, Barnett teaches:
validating the data to authorize the user to access the service. ([0116])
As per claims 24, Barnett teaches:
wherein the tokens include randomly generated numbers and/or randomly generated character sequences. ([0070], “As used herein, “tokenization” refers to a process by which original data is transformed into a token (e.g., a string of random or seemingly random characters), which may be later used to obtain the original data.”)
As per claims 26, 34, Barnett teaches:
decrypting the encrypted tokens; detokenizing the tokens; ([0089])
Deb teaches:
processing the sensitive information to determine the total value of the plurality of activities for the first account associated with the access device of the authenticated user. ([0027])
As per claims 27, 35, Deb teaches:
integrating the access device, the first account, the second account, and the plurality of recipient accounts with the service; and synchronizing, in real-time, the plurality of activities, the aggregated transmitted resources, and/or the transmitted value between the first account, the second account, and the plurality of recipient accounts. ([0027], [0042])
As per claims 28, 36, Deb teaches:
processing past data associated with the authenticated user to predict activities for the first account; determining the predicted activities exceeds a balance in the first account; and adjusting the first and second preset time period for the predicted activities based on the determination. ([0007], “The threshold value can be determined in part by any combination of user preferences and/or retailer-system preferences as well as the type of good or service, the quantity of units, historical data, payment instrument and/or time of "purchase" or download as well as a myriad of other factors. In one instance, retail users may be more willing to increase their amount of risk during high shopping seasons such as November and December but choose to set more conservative limits at other times of the year. In another instance, the time of the year in combination with a particular customer's purchasing and payment history may result in a higher threshold value compared to another customer with a less favorable payment history.”)
As per claims 29, 37, Deb teaches:
processing the first account to determine a balance is below a pre-determined threshold; determining the total value exceeds the balance in the first account; and determining to transmit the resources for the total value during the second preset time period based on past data of the authenticated user. ([0007], [0027], [0042])
As per claims 30, Deb teaches:
determining a failure of at least one activity from the plurality of activities associated with the first account; processing the at least one activity to determine a reason for the failure; and generating a presentation of an alert indicating the reason for the failure in the user interface of the device. ([0040]-[0041], “However, if the charge fails or is declined, then it can be recorded as a decline in the buffer 240; and a re-attempt to obtain payment can be scheduled for some time in the future and noted in the buffer 240 as well. As an additional consequence of the failed payment, the customer account can be suspended at least temporarily to stop further purchases or downloads to be made by the customer. Otherwise, notifications of repeated declines can be sent to the customer.”)
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20050144099 to Deb in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20160300198 to Guido and United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200366656 to Barnett, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20020112171 to Ginter.
As per claim 25, Deb as modified does not explicitly teach, but Ginter teaches:
wherein the encryption protocol incudes a symmetric encryption algorithm or an asymmetric encryption algorithm. ([1532]-[1533], “Symmetric algorithms are algorithms where the encryption key can be calculated from the decryption key and vice versa. In public-key cryptosystems, the key used for encryption is different from the key used for decryption. Furthermore, it is computationally infeasible to derive one key from the other. The algorithms used in these cryptosystems are called "public key" because one of the two keys can be made public without endangering the security of the other key. They are also sometimes called "asymmetric" cryptosystems because they use different keys for encryption and decryption.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ginter to the known invention of Deb as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such encryption features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the encryption protocol to use a specific algorithm such as a symmetric algorithm results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the data secure without the use of extra encryption keys, thus lowering the complexity and improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20050102242 to Omidyar discloses a method and a system that facilitate micropayments between a plurality of parties. A first plurality of micropayment commitments made by a first party are registered, the first plurality of payment commitments contributing towards a total commitment payable value for the first party. A second plurality of payment commitment made to a second party is registered, the second plurality of payment commitments contributing towards a total commitment receivable value for the second party. The total commitment receivable value for the second party is calculated utilizing a risk indication. The total commitment receivable value for the second party is identified as being satisfiable by the total commitment payable value for the first party. Responsive to this determination, a payment process, for payment of the total commitment receivable value by the first party to the second party, is initiated.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights