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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/525,126 entitled "INTEGRATED SERVICES EXPERIENCE" filed on March 19, 2026, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 19, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 19, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on January 15, 2026, and February 13, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A system, comprising: …..to at least:
send, …a first response, the first response comprising one or more identifiers, each identifier of the one or more identifiers uniquely identifying a respective merchant account;
receive, …a first request, the first request comprising a chosen identifier from the one or more identifiers, the chosen identifier corresponding to a chosen merchant account;
identify one or more disbursement methods accepted by the chosen merchant account based at least in part on past disbursements made to the chosen merchant account…;
send, …a second response, the second response comprising the one or more disbursement methods;
receive, …, a second request, the second request comprising a chosen disbursement method absent from the one or more disbursement methods and a disbursement amount; and
initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer, merchant, and/or payment provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “identify one or more disbursement methods” and “initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a payment rail” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device] [to a client device,] [from the client device,] [to the client device,][by a plurality of client devices]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0015] the computing environment 103 can include a plurality of computing devices that together can include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource, or any other distributed computing arrangement.
[0065] Thus, the memory can include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard disk drives, solid-state drives, USB flash drives, memory cards accessed via a memory card reader, floppy disks accessed via an associated floppy disk drive, optical discs accessed via an optical disc drive, magnetic tapes accessed via an appropriate tape drive, or other memory components
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“machine-readable”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 3: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 4: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 5:
“machine-readable”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“machine-readable”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7:
“machine-readable”, “computing device”, “client device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0015] the computing environment 103 can include a plurality of computing devices that together can include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource, or any other distributed computing arrangement.
[0065] Thus, the memory can include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard disk drives, solid-state drives, USB flash drives, memory cards accessed via a memory card reader, floppy disks accessed via an associated floppy disk drive, optical discs accessed via an optical disc drive, magnetic tapes accessed via an appropriate tape drive, or other memory components
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 8 recites:
“A method, comprising: receiving, …a first request to prepare a disbursement to a target merchant account;
identifying, ….target merchant account preferences, the target merchant account preferences comprising disbursement methods accepted by the target merchant account based at least in part on past disbursements made to the target merchant account…;
sending, …the disbursement methods accepted by the target merchant account;
receiving, …, a chosen disbursement method absent from the disbursement methods accepted by the target merchant account and a disbursement amount; and
initiating, …, a disbursement for the target merchant account to receive the disbursement amount, the disbursement using at least a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the disbursement methods accepted by the target merchant account.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer, merchant, and/or payment provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving, ….a chosen disbursement method and a disbursement amount” and “initiating, ….a disbursement for the target account to receive the disbursement amount” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[by a computing device and from a client device][by the computing device][by the computing device and to the client device][by the computing device and from the client device][by a plurality of client devices]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 9:
“by the computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 10: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 11:
“by the computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 12:
“by the computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 13:
“by the computing device to the client device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 14:
“client device is a second client device”, “by the computing device, that a first client device”, “by the computing device and to the second client device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 15: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0015] the computing environment 103 can include a plurality of computing devices that together can include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource, or any other distributed computing arrangement.
[0065] Thus, the memory can include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard disk drives, solid-state drives, USB flash drives, memory cards accessed via a memory card reader, floppy disks accessed via an associated floppy disk drive, optical discs accessed via an optical disc drive, magnetic tapes accessed via an appropriate tape drive, or other memory components
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 16 recites:
“…to at least: send, ….a first response, the first response comprising one or more identifiers, each identifier of the one or more identifiers uniquely identifying a respective merchant account;
receive, …a first request, the first request comprising a chosen identifier from the one or more identifiers, the chosen identifier corresponding to a chosen merchant account;
identify one or more disbursement methods accepted by the chosen merchant account based at least in part on past disbursements made to the chosen merchant account…;
send, …a second response, the second response comprising the one or more disbursement methods;
receive, …, a second request, the second request comprising a chosen disbursement method absent from the one or more disbursement methods and a disbursement amount; and
initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer, merchant, and/or payment provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “receiving, ….a chosen disbursement method and a disbursement amount” and “initiating, ….a disbursement for the target account to receive the disbursement amount” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device] [to a client device][from the client device,] [to the client device,] [from the client device][by a plurality of client devices]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 17:
“non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device”, “a merchant device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 18:
“non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “machine-readable”, “computing device”, “client device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 19:
“non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “machine-readable”, “computing device”, “client device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 20:
“non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “machine-readable”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0015] the computing environment 103 can include a plurality of computing devices that together can include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource, or any other distributed computing arrangement.
[0065] Thus, the memory can include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard disk drives, solid-state drives, USB flash drives, memory cards accessed via a memory card reader, floppy disks accessed via an associated floppy disk drive, optical discs accessed via an optical disc drive, magnetic tapes accessed via an appropriate tape drive, or other memory components
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
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 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhune (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PAYMENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20180330353 A1), in view of Lichterman (“INTELLIGENT META-PAYMENT SYSTEM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20130204728 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Prabhune teaches,
A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
(Prabhune [0031] the processor 202 and the memory
Prabhune [0027] a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) processor,
Prabhune [0028] The memory 204, as described herein, is one or more devices that permit data, instructions, etc., to be stored therein and retrieved therefrom
Prabhune [0029] the computing device)
send, to a client device, a first response, the first response comprising one or more identifiers, each identifier of the one or more identifiers uniquely identifying a respective merchant account;
(Prabhune [0026] the acquirers 104a-b,... are illustrated as including, or being implemented in, computing device 200
Prabhune [0021] transactions are later settled by and between the involved parts of system 100 …the merchant 102 a sends ...its payment account transactions... includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, ...a merchant name, a merchant ID … acquirer 104 a reconciles each of the transactions and passes them on to the payment network 106... the acquirer 104 b and the issuer 108 provide clearing records to the payment network 106....The issuer 108 then records the transactions against the accounts issued to its consumers ... while the acquirers 104 a-b record the transactions against the appropriate merchant's account.)
receive, from the client device, a first request, the first request comprising a chosen identifier from the one or more identifiers, the chosen identifier corresponding to a chosen merchant account;
(Prabhune [0026] the system 100 should not be considered to be limited to the computing device 200, as described below, as different computing devices and/or arrangements of computing devices may be used. In addition, different components and/or arrangements of components may be used in other computing devices.
Prabhune [0030] The computing device 200 also includes an input device 208 that receives inputs from the user (i.e., user inputs) such as, for example, selections of certain fees from issuer fee schedules, etc.), etc
Prabhune [0002] facilitating payment account transactions and, in particular, to systems and methods for assessing fees in connection with payment account transactions based on particular issuers associated
Prabhune [0021] This includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.
Prabhune [0019] the acquirer 104 a communicates the authorization message 114 through the payment network 106 (e.g., through MasterCard®, VISA®, Discover®, American Express®, etc.))
identify one or more disbursement methods accepted by the chosen merchant account;
(Prabhune [0021] This includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.
Prabhune [Abstract] includes selecting, by the at least one computing device, at least one fee for the transaction from the multiple fees in the fee schedule based on at least one transaction dimension of the identified transaction
Prabhune [0011] engine selects one or more fees for the transaction based on the fee schedule
Prabhune [0059] the authorization message to include the selected fee(s) and then releases the authorization message to the issuer
Prabhune [0060] the assessment engine 116 alters the authorization message by imposing the selected fee(s) as part of the amount of the transaction … Once altered, the authorization message is then released, at 324 to proceed to the issuer 108. The transaction is then cleared and settled as described above, in this example, with the assessment engine 116 also imposing the fees.
Examiner notes that if the authorization messages is accepted and a fee imposed, inherently, the disbursement methods is accepted by the chosen merchant account )
and initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a …payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods.
(Prabhune [0068] whereby the at least one fee is assessed to the payment account for payment by the consumer.
Prabhune [0018] an amount of the transaction
Prabhune [0013] a payment network
Prabhune [0021] and settles the transactions by debiting funds from appropriate accounts at the issuer 108 (as defined by clearing records received from the acquirer 104 a) and crediting the funds to accounts associated with the acquirer 104 a (e.g., for merchant 102 a, etc.) for the net amount of the transactions.)
Prabhune does not teach based at least in part on past disbursements made to the chosen merchant account by a plurality of client devices; send, to the client device, a second response, the second response comprising the one or more disbursement methods; receive, from the client device, a second request, the second request comprising a chosen disbursement method absent from the one or more disbursement methods and a disbursement amount; [and initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount] over a two-legged transaction [comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods];
Lichterman teaches,
based at least in part on past disbursements made to the chosen merchant account by a plurality of client devices;
(Lichterman [0032] loads all the payment account information, account history, and purchase history
Lichterman [0036] system then disqualifies any payment methods 34 that have been previously marked as invalid
Lichterman [0035] communicates with the merchant to obtain contextual information from the merchant including a list of valid payment methods accepted by the merchant)
send, to the client device, a second response, the second response comprising the one or more disbursement methods;
(Lichterman [0030] During checkout, the electronic device 1 receives a payment request from the merchant…Upon receipt of the payment request, the meta-payment system analyzes the requested purchase and determines the optimal payment method to complete the transaction. After selecting the optimal payment method, the meta-payment system transmits payment information to the merchant.)
receive, from the client device, a second request, the second request comprising a chosen disbursement method absent from the one or more disbursement methods and a disbursement amount; and
(Lichterman [0036] The system then disqualifies any payment methods 34 that have been previously marked as invalid or unavailable during step 32. The system sorts valid payment methods by the cost of the transaction in the payment method's native currency
Lichterman [Abstract] a transaction via communications between a merchant and a consumer via a personal computing device)
[initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount] over a two-legged transaction [comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods]
(Lichterman [0002] may have methods of payments that involved tiered reward structures, complex fee structures, and other attributes.
Lichterman [0034] the meta-payment system can split a transaction between a different payment forms..., the meta-payment system recognizes when applicable gift card balances and/or reward points should be utilized prior to cash or credit payment methods.
Lichterman [0029] connected to electronic data containing the purchasing party's plurality of payment methods 9 and the purchasing party's plurality of payment method preferences)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the preferred disbursement methods of Lichterman for “the purchasing party's plurality of payment method preferences.” (Lichterman [0029]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. preferred disbursement methods) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “consumer then sets an order of preference for all payment methods 23 in order to promote one method of payment over others in the case of two or more payment methods.” Lichterman [0032])
Regarding Claim 2,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: receive, from a merchant device, account information corresponding to the account, the account information comprising the one or more disbursement methods;
(Prabhune [0026] an exemplary computing device 200 that can be used in the system 100. The computing device 200 may include, for example, one or more servers, workstations, personal computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, PDAs, etc.
Prabhune [0021] the merchant 102a sends (e.g., via a clearing message, etc.) its payment account transactions...includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.... against the appropriate merchant's account.
Prabhune [0018] a terminal ID associated with the merchant 102 a, a merchant ID for the merchant 102 a, a name of the merchant
Prabhune [0020] The acquirer 104 b, in turn, communicates the authorization message through the payment network 106 (e.g., through MasterCard®, VISA®, Discover®, American Express®, etc.) to the issuer 108 in Region C. As such, Transaction B is a cross-border transaction. That said, the issuer 108 settles transactions in USD and the consumer's payment account is billed in USD
Examiner asserts a payment network execution is akin to a disbursement method )
and store the account information in association with an identifier that corresponds to the merchant account.
(Prabhune [0023] Transaction data is generated, collected, and stored as part of the above exemplary interactions among the merchants
Prabhune [0021] This includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.)
Regarding Claim 3,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
wherein the ….further comprises corresponding prices assigned to the one or more disbursement methods.
(Prabhune [Abstract] assessing fees associated with payment account transactions.... retrieving a fee schedule for the issuer where the fee schedule includes multiple fees and where each of the multiple fees is associated with the issuer and identified to at least one transaction dimension...selecting,... at least one fee for the transaction from the multiple fees in the fee schedule based on at least one transaction dimension of the identified transaction)
Prabhune does not teach second response;
Lichterman teaches,
second response;
(Lichterman [0030] During checkout, the electronic device 1 receives a payment request from the merchant. ....Upon receipt of the payment request, the meta-payment system analyzes the requested purchase and determines the optimal payment method to complete the transaction. After selecting the optimal payment method, the meta-payment system transmits payment information to the merchant..)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the preferred disbursement methods of Lichterman for “the purchasing party's plurality of payment method preferences.” (Lichterman [0029]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. preferred disbursement methods) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “consumer then sets an order of preference for all payment methods 23 in order to promote one method of payment over others in the case of two or more payment methods.” Lichterman [0032])
Regarding Claim 6,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
wherein the second request indicates that the disbursement should be funded by a loan, and the machine-readable instructions that initiate the disbursement further cause the computing device to at least send, to a lender service, a third request comprising directions to disburse the disbursement amount over the payment rail from the lender service to the chosen merchant account.
(Prabhune [0021] This includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.
Prabhune [0019] the acquirer 104 a communicates the authorization message 114 through the payment network 106 (e.g., through MasterCard®, VISA®, Discover®, American Express®, etc.) to the issuer 108. The issuer 108 then determines whether the transaction should be approved,
Prabhune [0021] and settles the transactions by debiting funds from appropriate accounts at the issuer 108 (as defined by clearing records received from the acquirer 104 a) and crediting the funds to accounts associated with the acquirer 104 a (e.g., for merchant 102 a, etc.) for the net amount of the transactions.
Prabhune [0018] an amount of the transaction
Prabhune [0013] a payment network
Examiner views a credit account transactions as loans )
Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Prabhune does not teach further comprising sending, by the computing device to the client device , disbursement prices, each disbursement price of the disbursement prices corresponds to at least one disbursement method of the disbursement methods.
Lichterman teaches,
further comprising sending, by the computing device to the client device, disbursement prices, each disbursement price of the disbursement prices corresponds to at least one disbursement method of the disbursement methods.
(Lichterman [0002] complex fee structures
Lichterman [0003] one particular payment method may offer a better exchange rate and a lower foreign transaction fee than another payment method.
Lichterman [Claim 3] configuring of the at least one server comprises entering fee structures.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the preferred disbursement methods of Lichterman for “the purchasing party's plurality of payment method preferences.” (Lichterman [0029]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. preferred disbursement methods) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “consumer then sets an order of preference for all payment methods 23 in order to promote one method of payment over others in the case of two or more payment methods.” Lichterman [0032])
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhune and Lichterman in view of Kolchin (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING SECURE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20240013193 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Prabhune does not teach wherein the second response further comprises a recommended disbursement method of the one or more disbursement methods and a recommended price of the corresponding prices.
Kolchin teaches,
wherein the second response further comprises a recommended disbursement method of the one or more disbursement methods and a recommended price of the corresponding prices.
(Kolchin [0079] configured to recommend and automatically choose a preferred processing route based on cost
Kolchin [0060] configured to perform a real time interchange detection to surcharge consumers at a fairer price. Interchange-plus is a pricing model ....consists of two components the interchange fee determined by the card networks and a markup set by the credit card processor itself.
Kolchin [0062] allow for automatically choosing payment method based on preferences and lowest cost in the interchange-plus pricing model.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the price recommendations of Kolchin for a “recommend … a preferred processing route based on cost.” (Kolchin [0079]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. price recommendations) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “allow for automatically choosing payment method based on preferences and lowest cost.” Kolchin [0062])
Regarding Claim 5,
Prabhune, Lichterman, and Kolchin teach the integrated services experience of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least determine the recommended disbursement method of the one or more disbursement methods
(Prabhune [Abstract] assessing fees associated with payment account transactions.... retrieving a fee schedule for the issuer where the fee schedule includes multiple fees and where each of the multiple fees is associated with the issuer and identified to at least one transaction dimension...selecting,... at least one fee for the transaction from the multiple fees in the fee schedule based on at least one transaction dimension of the identified transaction
Prabhune [Abstract] includes selecting, by the at least one computing device, at least one fee for the transaction from the multiple fees in the fee schedule based on at least one transaction dimension of the identified transaction)
Prabhune does not teach wherein the first request further comprises a disbursement due date; based at least in part on the disbursement due date and the corresponding prices assigned to the one or more disbursement methods
Kolchin teaches,
wherein the first request further comprises a disbursement due date; based at least in part on the disbursement due date and the corresponding prices assigned to the one or more disbursement methods
(Kolchin [0062] allow for automatically choosing payment method based on preferences and lowest cost in the interchange-plus pricing model
Kolchin [0079] configured to recommend and automatically choose a preferred processing route based on cost
Kolchin [0089] The system is also configured to provide the same monitoring service...allowing the consumers to track...and be alerted with regard to various deadlines such as loan payoff due dates, etc.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the deadline management of Kolchin for “wing the consumers to track... to various deadlines.” (Kolchin [0089]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. deadline management) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “allowing the consumers to … be alerted.” Kolchin [0089])
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhune and Lichterman in view of Peters (“SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING DISTRIBUTED TRANSACTIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20070162308 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Prabhune does not teach wherein the machine-readable instructions that send the first response are executed in response to identifying the one or more identifiers and the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: receive, from the client device, a third request, the third request comprising a search term; and identify the one or more identifiers based at least in part on a partial match of the search term to account information associated with the one or more identifiers.
Peters teaches,
wherein the machine-readable instructions that send the first response are executed in response to identifying the one or more identifiers and the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: receive, from the client device, a third request, the third request comprising a search term;
(Peters [0079] when a user accesses the EON Exchange 210, typically via EON Toolbar 215, the type of user (e.g., employer, insurance company, hospital, clinic, or the like) and the identity of the user. ... a request may be made to acquire any data maintained in the system database which is typically maintained in a relational database, or similar type of database. Exemplary types of data that may be maintained and/or queried by the invention...any type of data associated with business operations (such as financial, employee and/or cost data) or data associated with records .... may be queried
Peters [0052] Access devices 210 a-210 d which may be various computer servers, lap tops, personal desk top computers, PDAs, etc., having various operating systems
Peters [0018] steps include identifying a type of stakeholder, determining a need of the stakeholder, identifying a software component to satisfy the need of the stakeholder based on the type of stakeholder, integrating the identified software component
Peters [0069] may accommodate any special client requests for customization
Peters [0115] process uses a remote SQL search
Peters [0127] elements are searchable and updateable by the Stakeholders)
and identify the one or more identifiers based at least in part on a partial match of the search term
(Peters [page 17] All searches use search parameters of partial words, and use "soundex" for names and text items.)
to account information associated with the one or more identifiers.
(Peters [0008] patient data, clinical and payment information.
Peters [0011] handle transaction payments including HAS/FSA accounts
Peters [0117] can be easily determined by identifying the last four digits of the account number.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the distributed transaction management of Peters for “extending business interoperability to business entities, and, more particularly, to a system and process for efficiently extending interoperability for communications and data related to transactions to business entities in an overall business sector.” (Peters [0003]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. distributed transaction management) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “providing interoperability between stakeholders in ….a logically centralized database having information records related to a plurality of different stakeholders, … having different internal formats of data and at least one integration component interfaced with each of the plurality of disparate … systems to normalize the information … and to permit access to the normalized information by the different stakeholders.” Peters [0017])
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claims 9-12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhune and Lichterman in view of Ball (“INTERACTIVE BANKING USING MULTIPLE CHECKING ACCOUNTS”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11574359 B1).
Regarding Claim 9,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
initiating, by the computing device, a first transfer from a client account to a disbursement account,
(Prabhune [0068] whereby the at least one fee is assessed to the payment account for payment by the consumer.
Prabhune [0018] an amount of the transaction
Prabhune [0013] a payment network
Prabhune [0021] and settles the transactions by debiting funds from appropriate accounts at the issuer 108 (as defined by clearing records received from the acquirer 104 a) and crediting the funds to accounts associated with the acquirer 104 a (e.g., for merchant 102 a, etc.) for the net amount of the transactions.)
perform, by the computing device, the disbursement from the disbursement account to the target merchant account over the chosen disbursement method.
(Prabhune [Abstract] includes selecting, by the at least one computing device, at least one fee for the transaction from the multiple fees in the fee schedule based on at least one transaction dimension of the identified transaction
Prabhune [0002] facilitating payment account transactions and, in particular, to systems and methods for assessing fees in connection with payment account transactions based on particular issuers associated
Prabhune [0021] and settles the transactions by debiting funds from appropriate accounts at the issuer 108 (as defined by clearing records received from the acquirer 104 a) and crediting the funds to accounts associated with the acquirer 104 a (e.g., for merchant 102 a, etc.) for the net amount of the transactions.
Prabhune [0021] This includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.)
Prabhune does not teach the client account is unable to perform the disbursement over the chosen disbursement method, and the disbursement account is able to perform the disbursement over the chosen disbursement method;
Ball teaches,
the client account is unable to perform the disbursement over the chosen disbursement method,
(Ball [Col 4, Lines 47-57] enable the customer device 110 to exchange information with a customer... and other devices. The customer I/O device 114 may include systems... Such systems, components, devices and apparatuses include, for example, radio frequency transceivers (e.g., RF or NFC-based transceivers) and other short range wireless transceivers (e.g., Bluetooth©, laser-based data transmitters, etc.).
Ball [Col 7, Lines 34-36] the customer spending account has a payment card (e.g., a debit card, an Automated Teller Machine card) associated therewith
Ball [Col 3, Line 55 to Col 4, Line 9] such a multi-account structure facilitates the financial institution providing guidance to improve the financial health of the customer.....the customer's access to funds placed in the customer reserve account is restricted. For example funds placed in the customer reserve account may only be available for payment of a certain subset of customer expenses
Ball [Col 10, Lines 19-22] the customer's ability to transfer funds from a typical savings account is heavily restricted (e.g., the bank may limit the customer's ability to withdraw funds). As such, any funds placed into the customer's savings accounts are generally unavailable for use in many types of transactions. Put differently, the customer's access to funds is basically binary: either the customer has total access to funds (when in the checking account), or limited access to funds (when in the savings account)
Ball [Col 1, Lines 57-59] The method includes receiving, by a financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution
Ball [Claim 11] establishing, by a financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution and via a network interface configured to communicate data over a network, a connection
Examiner notes in the prior art, a customer is unable to remit payments from a reserve/restricted account along certain payment channels. For example, a savings account may not remit payment through their NFC debit card/checking account. )
and the disbursement account is able to perform the disbursement over the chosen disbursement method;
(Ball [Col 7, Lines 54-58] Since the customer's deposits are routed to the customer reserve account, portions of the deposits must then be transferred to the customer spending account to render funds available for everyday customer spending.
Ball [Col 7, Lines 34-36] the customer spending account has a payment card (e.g., a debit card, an Automated Teller Machine card) associated therewith
Examiner notes in the prior art, a customer is unable to remit payments from a reserve/restricted account along certain payment channels. For example, a savings account may not remit payment through their NFC debit card/checking account)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the multi-account transactions of Ball for “account registration and activation sequence in which a customer is able to establish multiple checking accounts.” (Ball [Col 3, Lines 39-41]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. multi-account transactions) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “providing interoperability between stakeholders in ….a logically centralized database having information records related to a plurality of different stakeholders, … having different internal formats of data and at least one integration component interfaced with each of the plurality of disparate … systems to normalize the information … and to permit access to the normalized information by the different stakeholders.” Ball [Col 3, Lines 38-43])
Regarding Claim 10,
Prabhune, Lichterman, and Ball teach the integrated services experience of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Prabhune does not teach wherein the first transfer from the client account to the disbursement account is an interbank transfer.
Ball teaches,
wherein the first transfer from the client account to the disbursement account is an interbank transfer.
(Ball [Col 8, Lines 21-24] The entity may electronically (e.g., via an Automated Clearing House transaction) transfer funds into the customer spending account via the network
Ball [Abstract] financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution includes an account management circuit.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the multi-account transactions of Ball for “account registration and activation sequence in which a customer is able to establish multiple checking accounts.” (Ball [Col 3, Lines 39-41]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. multi-account transactions) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “providing interoperability between stakeholders in ….a logically centralized database having information records related to a plurality of different stakeholders, … having different internal formats of data and at least one integration component interfaced with each of the plurality of disparate … systems to normalize the information … and to permit access to the normalized information by the different stakeholders.” Ball [Col 3, Lines 38-43])
Regarding Claim 11,
Prabhune, Lichterman, and Ball teach the integrated services experience of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
the second disbursement method, and the chosen disbursement method, and the method further comprises selecting, by the computing device
(Prabhune [0030] includes an input device 208 that receives inputs from the user (i.e., user inputs) such as, for example, selections of certain fees from issuer fee schedules, etc.), etc.... another computing device
Prabhune [0013] network 110 may include multiple different networks, such as a private payment transaction network made accessible by the payment network 106 to the acquirers 104 a-b and the issuer and, separately, the public Internet, which may provide interconnection between the merchants 102 a-b and the acquirers 104 a-b (as appropriate), etc.
Prabhune [0029] the computing device)
preferred disbursement method from a set of the first disbursement method and the second disbursement method.
(Prabhune [Abstract] method also includes selecting, by the at least one computing device, at least one fee for the transaction from the multiple fees in the fee schedule based on at least one transaction dimension of the identified transaction, and providing the selected at least one fee for the identified transaction, whereby the at least one fee is assessed to the payment account for payment by the consumer.
Prabhune [0013] network 110 may include multiple different networks, such as a private payment transaction network made accessible by the payment network 106 to the acquirers 104 a-b and the issuer and, separately, the public Internet, which may provide interconnection between the merchants 102 a-b and the acquirers 104 a-b (as appropriate), etc.
Prabhune [0019] the acquirer 104 a communicates the authorization message 114 through the payment network 106 (e.g., through MasterCard®, VISA®, Discover®, American Express®, etc.) to the issuer 108.)
Prabhune does not teach wherein the client account is able to transfer the disbursement amount over at least a first disbursement method and a second disbursement method, the disbursement account is able to receive the disbursement amount over the first disbursement method; and based at least on an expected transfer delivery date
Ball teaches,
wherein the client account is able to transfer the disbursement amount over at least a first disbursement method and a second disbursement method, the disbursement account
(Ball [Col 7, Lines 47-66] Since the customer's deposits are routed to the customer reserve account, portions of the deposits must then be transferred to the customer spending account to render funds available for everyday customer spending.....is tied to a periodic transfer between the customer reserve account and the customer spending account. .... to transfer funds to the customer spending account)
is able to receive the disbursement amount over the first disbursement method;
(Ball [Col 1, Lines 57-59] The method includes receiving, by a financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution
Ball [Claim 11] establishing, by a financial institution computing system associated with a financial institution and via a network interface configured to communicate data over a network, a connection)
and based at least on an expected transfer delivery date
(Ball [Col 4, Lines 1-2] Each envelope may include an amount owed by the customer by a certain date
Ball [Col 5, Lines 57-59] designates portions of available funds to each customer bill based on the amount and due date of each payment.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the multi-account transactions of Ball for “account registration and activation sequence in which a customer is able to establish multiple checking accounts.” (Ball [Col 3, Lines 39-41]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. multi-account transactions) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “providing interoperability between stakeholders in ….a logically centralized database having information records related to a plurality of different stakeholders, … having different internal formats of data and at least one integration component interfaced with each of the plurality of disparate … systems to normalize the information … and to permit access to the normalized information by the different stakeholders.” Ball [Col 3, Lines 38-43])
Regarding Claim 12,
Prabhune, Lichterman, and Ball teach the integrated services experience of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
transferring, by the computing device, an initial amount of a first currency from the client account to an exchange account, the initial amount of the first currency being equivalent to the disbursement amount of a second currency; and transferring, by the computing device, the disbursement amount of the second currency to the disbursement account.
(Prabhune [0022] cross-border transactions and/or currency conversion transactions
Prabhune [0004] cross-border transactions may further involve exchanges of currency (e.g., where the purchases involve merchants in the United States or Australia (and the currency involves dollars), and the issuers are present in Europe (which use Euros), etc.).
Prabhune [0015] delineates use of different currencies, for example, where a first currency is used in Region A (e.g., Euros, etc.) and a second currency is used in Regions B and C (e.g., US dollars, etc.).
Prabhune [0016] complete a payment account transaction for purchase of the one or more products using the consumer's payment account.)
Regarding Claim 14,
Prabhune and Lichterman teach the integrated services experience of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Prabhune teaches,
wherein the client device is a second client device
(Prabhune [0026] the computing device 200 may include a single computing device, or it may include multiple computing devices.the computing device 200, as described below, as different computing devices and/or arrangements of computing devices may be used....the computing device 200, as described below, as different computing devices and/or arrangements of computing devices may be used.)
sending, by the computing device and to the second client device, an amended price corresponding to the first disbursement method.
(Prabhune [0026] may include multiple computing devices
Prabhune [0011] the particular issuer involved in the cross-border transaction is able to set, specify, and/or tune the certain fees, for example, to account for different risks and/or aspects of the transaction, etc., potentially with the fees being applied (automatically) apart from the particular issuer (e.g., by a payment network including the assessment engine, etc.).)
merchant account
(Prabhune [0021] This includes information for each transaction associated with the merchant 102 a, including, for example, an account number or other ID, an amount of the transaction, a merchant name, a merchant ID, a merchant location, a transaction type, etc.)
Prabhune does not teach the disbursement is a second disbursement, and the method further comprising: identifying, by the computing device, that a first client device has scheduled a first disbursement to the target merchant … over a first disbursement method;
Ball teaches,
the disbursement is a second disbursement,
(Ball [Col 4, Lines 1-8] envelope may include an amount owed by the customer by a certain date as well as an adjustable allocation amount. In various embodiments, the systems and methods disclosed herein provide suggested allocation amounts to the customer and dynamically update the envelopes in accordance with allocation inputs provided by the customer
Ball [Col 6, Lines 14-16] facilitate and permit payments by interfacing with various accounts held by the customer
Ball [Col 6, Lines 55-63] upcoming payments owed by the customer to various entities, and suggested allocations of customer funds...allocate customer funds among payments owed by the customer.)
and the method further comprising: identifying, by the computing device, that a first client device has scheduled a first disbursement to the target merchant …over a first disbursement method;
(Ball [Col 1, Lines 42-45] the account management circuit is also configured to create first and second checking accounts for the customer
Ball [Col 4, Lines 1-2] Each envelope may include an amount owed by the customer by a certain date
Ball [Col 5, Lines 51-59] customer device 110 may receive (e.g., from the financial institution computing system 120) information regarding bills (e.g., rent, utility bills, service provider bills) of the customer describing various amounts owed by the customer to recipients by predetermined dates. The allocation algorithm may include a prioritization scheme that designates portions of available funds to each customer bill based on the amount and due date of each payment.
Ball [Col 17, Lines 55-60] the financial institution computing system 120 maintains a directory of merchants that associates a number of different merchants with each of the categories. Upon the customer performing a transaction via the customer spending account, the financial institution computing system 120 accesses the directory and, based on the merchant
Ball [Col 24, Lines 35-44] access a lookup table that associates various merchant names (or merchant category codes) ... associates each transaction with an icon based on the merchant of the transaction)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the multi-account transactions of Ball for “account registration and activation sequence in which a customer is able to establish multiple checking accounts.” (Ball [Col 3, Lines 39-41]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. multi-account transactions) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “providing interoperability between stakeholders in ….a logically centralized database having information records related to a plurality of different stakeholders, … having different internal formats of data and at least one integration component interfaced with each of the plurality of disparate … systems to normalize the information … and to permit access to the normalized information by the different stakeholders.” Ball [Col 3, Lines 38-43])
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhune, Lichterman, Ball, and Peters.
Regarding Claim 15,
Prabhune, Lichterman, and Ball teach the integrated services experience of Claim 14 as described earlier.
Prabhune does not teach wherein the amended price is a discount from the corresponding disbursement price.
Peters teaches,
wherein the amended price is a discount from a second disbursement price of the second disbursement.
(Peters [0078] optionally, a fee may be deducted
Peters [page 43] Discount percentage
Peters [page 41] discounts and adjustments)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transaction fees of Prabhune to incorporate the distributed transaction management of Peters for “extending business interoperability to business entities, and, more particularly, to a system and process for efficiently extending interoperability for communications and data related to transactions to business entities in an overall business sector.” (Peters [0003]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. distributed transaction management) to a known concept (i.e. transaction fees) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “providing interoperability between stakeholders in ….a logically centralized database having information records related to a plurality of different stakeholders, … having different internal formats of data and at least one integration component interfaced with each of the plurality of disparate … systems to normalize the information … and to permit access to the normalized information by the different stakeholders.” Peters [0017])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on March 19, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant also submits that "identify one or more disbursement methods" and "initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a payment rail" are not “fundamental economic principles”
Examiner responds:
Examiner maintains the amended limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer, merchant, and/or payment provider. The amended limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “identify one or more disbursement methods” and “initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a payment rail” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. The Specification reads, [0006] “Disclosed are various approaches for managing an integrated services experience. Current money movements today are often siloed and available at different financial platforms. For instance, bank systems are primarily performing Automated Clearing House (ACH) or wire transfers, whereas card payments are performed by processors. Accordingly, businesses often require various financial platforms to complete very basic tasks.” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The only technological components (additional elements) identified by the Examiner (in Claim 1) relate to a “computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory” and “client device”. However, the focus of the invention is not on an improvement in computing devices as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computing devices as tools.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant submits that claim 1 is directed toward an inherently technical design involving "receiv[ing]... a chosen disbursement method absent from the one or more disbursement methods; and initiat[ing] a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail."
Examiner responds:
The acts of “receiv[ing]... a chosen disbursement method absent from the one or more disbursement methods; and initiat[ing] a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, it covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The proposed invention solves a business/financial concern relating to payment method prioritization. It does not constitute a technological innovation.
The Applicant states:
“The specification clearly lays out a technical improvement that saves "time and effort."… claim 1 recites in part, "initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods." Applicant submits that in the surrounding industry, none of this language is "conventional activity" and instead represents an "inventive concept" and "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exception.."
Examiner responds:
The improvement of “time and effort” may be entirely managerial, unrelated to improvements to computer processing or latency.
The act to “initiate a disbursement for the disbursement amount over a two-legged transaction comprising at least the chosen disbursement method and a payment rail, the payment rail corresponding to a disbursement method in the one or more disbursement methods” remains abstract and unrelated to technological components.
In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Lichterman (“INTELLIGENT META-PAYMENT SYSTEM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20130204728 A1).
Excised prior art includes:
Clements (“INSTANT NETWORK CASH TRANSFER AT POINT OF SALE”, U.S. Patent Number: 11551190 B1),
Calman (“NOTIFYING MOBILE DEVICE USERS OF A SUGGESTED PAYMENT TYPE PRIOR TO CONDUCTING A TRANSACTION AT A MERCHANT”, U.S. Publication Number: 20140006272 A1).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of new prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Royer (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING AN ACCOUNT”, U.S. Patent Number: US 6685088 B1) provides a means to use a single transaction card to facilitate transactions with a variety of transaction account devices. Accordingly, multiple accounts are associated with a selecta-card by pre-selected account identification numbers. To facilitate a transaction with a selecta-card, a cardholder enrolls in a selecta-card account system, providing account identification numbers corresponding to desired cardholder-identified transaction accounts. When making a purchase, the cardholder swipes the selecta-card through a remote terminal such as a POS device, wherein the selecta-card number is read and communicated to a selecta-card provider. To choose which transaction account to use for the purchase, the cardholder inputs an account identification number corresponding to a pre-defined transaction account, the selecta-card provider retrieves the corresponding transaction account and processes cardholder transaction request accordingly.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695