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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received December 5, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
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.
(Step 1) The claims recite a method and an apparatus. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
(Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents certain methods of organizing human activity, as a method for asset escheatment prevention. Asset escheatment prevention is akin to certain methods of organizing human activity.
A method comprising: determining, by account management circuitry and based on a jurisdiction dataset, a dormancy status for at least one asset associated with a first digital user account, the dormancy status indicating that the at least one asset is within a dormancy period; causing, by communications hardware and during the dormancy period, transmission of an authentication credential request through a first digital channel to a first user device associated with the first digital user account; authenticating, by authentication circuitry, a first user associated with the first digital user account based on an authentication credential set received from the first user device in response to the authentication credential request; and automatically performing, by activity facilitation circuitry and in response to an affirmative indication received from the first user device, a first action for the at least one asset on behalf of the user, wherein performance of the action facilitates owner-generated activity for the asset.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are considered as follows:
“by account management circuitry”. This is merely “apply it” this circuitry is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“by communications hardware”. This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering and data transmitting.
“through a first digital channel to a first user device associated with the first digital user account”. This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering and data transmitting.
“by authentication circuitry”. This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“by activity facilitation circuitry”. This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
(Step 2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of asset escheatment prevention, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware. The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Independent Claim 11 is rejected under the same reasoning as independent Claim 1. Analysis of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walsh et al. (Publication No.: US 2021/0192609 A1).
As to Claim 1, Walsh teaches a method comprising:
determining, by account management circuitry and based on a jurisdiction dataset, a dormancy status for at least one asset associated with a first digital user account, the dormancy status indicating that the at least one asset is within a dormancy period (see ¶[0008] – “The instructions are further configured to implement artificial intelligence, including machine learning techniques, to (i) identify recurring transaction patterns in the historical transaction data for the financial accounts, and (ii) analyze the recurring transaction patterns and the data to identify each of the one or more electronic financial transactions as either a one-time-only transaction or a recurring transaction. Moreover, the instructions are configured to apply abandoned property (i.e., escheatment) compliance requirements, which are specific to a jurisdictional entity (e.g., a U.S. state or the like) at which the account holder is located, to update a date of last activity associated with the financial account based at least in part on the identification of each of one or more electronic financial transactions as either a one-time-only transaction or a recurring transaction.”, and ¶[0010] – “In further specific embodiments the system further comprises a second computing platform including a second memory and at least one second processor in communication with the second memory. The second memory stores second instructions that are executable by the second processor and configured to determine that a time period between the date of last activity and a current date exceeds an abandoned property time period defined in the abandoned property compliance requirements, and, in response to determining that the time period exceeds the abandoned property time period, escheat property in the financial account to a third-party agency associated with a jurisdiction of the financial account.”);
causing, by communications hardware and during the dormancy period, transmission of an authentication credential request through a first digital channel to a first user device associated with the first digital user account (see ¶[0043] – “In specific embodiments of the invention, an account's date of last activity is monitored, along with other relevant account-related dates (e.g., date of last contact or the like), to determine when property remaining in an inactive financial account escheats to the state. As previously stated, some states allow electronic recurring transactions to qualify to update an account's date of last activity for purposes of determining when escheatment occurs, while other states forbid such transactions from qualifying as a date of least activity. The present invention provides automated and certain means of categorizing electronic transactions, such as Automated Clearinghouse House (ACH), wire transactions, bill pay transactions, automatic transfers, and recurring merchant payments as either recurring or one-time-only (i.e., non-recurring) and, once categorized, applying the state-specific requirements to determine a date of last activity and, based on the date of last activity, when escheatment occurs.”;
authenticating, by authentication circuitry, a first user associated with the first digital user account based on an authentication credential set received from the first user device in response to the authentication credential request (see ¶[0047] – “The system 100 additionally includes one or more eligible account activity identification server(s) 400 that are in network communication with the financial transaction database(s) 200 and the abandoned property compliance requirements database 300 via distributed communications network 110. The eligible account activity identification server(s) 400 include a computing platform 410 having a memory 412 and one or more processing devices 414 in communication with the memory 410. The memory 412 stores first instructions 420 that are executable by the one or more processing devices 414. The first instructions 420 are configured to receive electronic transaction data 422 associated with electronic transactions 424 from at least one of the plurality financial accounts 220. In specific embodiments of the invention, the electronic transaction data 422 is associated with most, if not all, of the plurality of financial accounts 220 within a financial institution, as such, for large financial institutions, so called “big data” processing is subsequently implemented to determine transaction patterns and identify transactions as recurring, one-time-only and, in specific embodiments of the invention, first time occurrence of a scheduled transaction. In specific embodiments of the invention the received electronic transaction data 422 reflects all of the electronic transactions that have occurred over a predetermined period of time (e.g., a week, a day or the like). In such instances, the subsequent process of determining a date of last activity for the financial account(s) 220 occurs on the same cycle (e.g., weekly, daily or the like). It should also be noted that financial transactions are typically coded to indicate the type of transaction and, as such, in specific embodiments of the invention, the first instructions 420 may be configured to only receive financial transaction data that is coded to indicate specific types of transactions, such as, electronic transactions, e.g., ACH transactions, wire transactions, bill pay transactions, automatic transfers, recurring merchant payments or the like. In addition to receiving the electronic transaction data 422, the first instructions 420 are configured to access the financial transaction database 200 to retrieve historical transaction data 210 associated with the at least one of the plurality of financial accounts 220.”); and
automatically performing, by activity facilitation circuitry and in response to an affirmative indication received from the first user device, a first action for the at least one asset on behalf of the user, wherein performance of the action facilitates owner-generated activity for the asset (see ¶[0065] – “At Event 642, a determination is made as to whether the scheduled recurring transaction/payment is a first-time occurrence of the scheduled payment or a subsequent (i.e., later than the first) occurrence of the scheduled payment. For purposes of abandoned property compliance requirements, certain states treat first-time occurrences of a scheduled payment as a non-recurring financial transaction (i.e., only subsequent scheduled recurring transactions, after the first occurrence, are treated as recurring transactions). At Event 650, state-specific (or other physical location-specific) abandoned property compliance requirements are applied to determine an update to the date of last activity for those financial accounts in which an electronic transaction or a customer-scheduled recurring transaction/payment occurred during the previous predetermined time interval. In contrast to the method shown in FIG. 5, in the method of FIG. 6, the abandoned property compliance requirements are applied to both the results of the electronic transaction decisioning (i.e., one-time only vs recurring) and the customer-scheduled recurring transactions/payment decisioning (i.e., first occurrence of scheduled transaction vs subsequent occurrence of scheduled transaction/recurring) to determine an update to the date of last activity Similar to the embodiments of the invention discussed in relation to FIG. 5, activity other than the electronic financial transactions and the customer scheduled payments/transactions are considered for purposes of defining the date of last activity and, as such, the date of the last recurring electronic financial transaction or customer scheduled payment, the date of the last one-time only electronic financial transaction or the date of the last first time customer scheduled payment may or may not define the date of last activity.”).
As to Claim 2, Walsh teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying, by the account management circuitry, the dormancy status based on the performance of the first action (see ¶[0065]).
As to Claim 3, Walsh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein automatically performing the first action comprises: causing, by the activity facilitation circuitry, a payment transfer in connection with the at least one asset (see ¶[0063] –“ At Event 640, the artificial intelligence-based algorithm is executed to determine which of the electronic financial transactions are recurring financial transactions and which are one-time-only financial transactions (i.e., determined to not be a recurring financial transaction). At Event 650, state-specific (or other physical location-specific) abandoned property compliance requirements are applied to determine an update to the date of last activity for those financial accounts in which an electronic transaction occurred during the previous predetermined time interval. As previously discussed, certain states' abandoned property compliance requirements allow for recurring financial transactions to update a date of last activity, while in other states recurring financial transactions are prohibited from updating the date of last activity. It should also be noted that activity other than the electronic financial transactions are considered for purposes of defining the date of last activity and, as such, the date of the least recurring electronic financial transaction or the date of the last one-time only electronic financial transaction may or may not define the date of last activity. In response to updating the date of last activity for those financial accounts in which transactions occurred, at Event 660, the updated date of last activity is transmitted to an abandoned property compliance portal/hub for subsequent monitoring for determination of when escheatment occurs. In addition, as previously discussed the abandoned property compliance portal/hub provides for display of various views, such as a current view depicting, at least, the current date of last activity for a chosen financial account and related time interval decisioning for the electronic financial transactions that occurred during the most recent decisioning period. In addition, the portal/hub is configured to display an archived view that depicts, for a chosen time period, at least, the historical updates to the date of last activity that occurred during the time period and the related decisioning for the electronic financial transactions that occurred during the chosen time period.”).
As to Claim 4, Walsh teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one asset comprises a financial account, and wherein the payment transfer comprises a transfer of funds from the financial account to a second financial account (see ¶[0063]).
As to Claim 5, Walsh teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the jurisdiction dataset defines criteria for the owner-generated activity and the dormancy status in accordance with a first jurisdiction (see ¶[0008], and ¶[0010]) .
As to Claim 6, Walsh teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting, by the account management circuitry, the first digital channel from a plurality of digital channels based on a user dataset associated with the first digital user account (see ¶[0060] – “Moreover, first instructions 412 may provide for an abandoned property compliance portal/hub 460 that is configured to present a first view/user interface 500 and a second view/user interface 540, as shown in FIG. 4. The portal/hub 460 is configured to receive a user input 510 that identifies a financial account and, in response, is configured to display first view/user interface 500 that presents the current date of last activity 520 for the identified financial account. The current date of last activity 520 being the most recent update to the date of last activity. It should be noted that since other types of activities besides electronic transactions are considered for purposes of determining the date of last activity, the date of last activity for a financial account may reflect a date that is different than the date of the last recurring electronic transaction or last one-time-only electronic transaction. In addition, the first view/user interface 500 presents current period decisioning 530 (i.e., a listing of transactions considered for the most recent update to the date of last activity and, for each transaction, an indication of whether they were identified as one-time-only, first-time or recurring). In addition, the portal/hub 460 is configured to receive a user input 550 that identifies a financial account and a time period and, in response, is configured to display second view/user interface 540 that presents the historical data of the date of last activity updates 560 that occurred during the identified time period. In addition, the second view/user interface 540 presents historical decisioning 570 (i.e., listing of transactions decisioned during the identified time period and, for each transaction, an indication of whether they were identified as one-time-only, first-time or recurring).”).
As to Claim 7, Walsh teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the first digital user account is managed by a first financial institution and wherein the user dataset comprises user data stored by one or more financial institutions different from the first financial institution, wherein the method further comprises: causing transmission, by the communications hardware, of a request for the user data to one or more devices associated with the one or more financial institutions; and receiving, by the communications hardware, the user data in response to the request (see ¶[0008], and ¶[0010]).
As to Claim 8, Walsh teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the communications hardware, a user prompt associated with the at least one asset; retrieving, by model orchestration circuitry, a dataset associated with the at least one asset; generating, by the model orchestration circuitry, a natural language response to the user prompt based on the retrieved dataset; and causing, by the communications hardware, transmission of the natural language response (see ¶[0050] – “Referring to FIG. 2, a schematic diagram is provided of the system 100 for evaluating transaction data to determine activity that is eligible to update a date of last activity associated with a financial account, in accordance with alternative embodiments of the invention. In the embodiments described in relation to FIG. 2, the memory 412 of computing platform 410 additionally stores second instructions 480 that are configured to monitor the date of last activity 440 along with other relevant account-related dates/factors to determine when escheatment occurs (i.e., when property in a financial reverts to the state due to inactivity for a prescribed period of time). Other relevant account-related factors take into account that certain states or other jurisdictional locations may look to a date other than the date of last activity 440 for purposes of triggering escheatment. For example, in addition to account activity/transactions, certain states may look to account contacts (e.g., checking online balances, calling the financial institution regarding an account and the like) for purposes of updating an applicable date (i.e., a date of last contact). In this regard, monitoring entails determining when a time period 482 between the date of last activity or contact 440 and a current date 484 exceeds an abandoned property time period 486 as defined by the location/state-specific abandoned property compliance requirements 310. For example, if the abandoned property compliance requirements 310 define the escheatment property time period as five years and the time period between the current date and the date of last activity or contact is determined to be greater than five years then, the escheatment process 490 ensues. The instructions 480 are further configured to implement the escheatment process 490 in response to determining that the time period 482 between the date of last activity or contact 440 and the current date 484 exceeds the abandoned property requirements time period 486. The escheatment process may include, but is not limited to, generating and initiating electronic communication of a notification 492 to a third-party agency 494 (e.g., state or other government agency) that notifies the third-party agency of the escheatment and that property related to the escheatment is forthcoming. In other embodiments of the invention, the escheatment process 490 includes automatic property reversion/escheatment 496 of the property held in the financial account 220 in response to the determination that the time period 482 between the date of last activity or contact 440 and the current date 484 exceeds the abandoned property requirements time period 486.”).
As to Claim 9, Walsh teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by model orchestration circuitry, the authentication credential request, wherein generating the authentication credential request comprises: generating, by model orchestration circuitry, a series of authentication queries based on a user dataset associated with the first digital account; wherein the authentication credential set comprises user inputs in response to the series of authentication queries (see ¶[0043], and ¶[0047]).
As to Claim 10, Walsh teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing, by the communications hardware and prior to causing transmission of authentication credential request, transmission of at least a portion of a user dataset associated with the first digital user account to a partner device associated with a partnered entity; receiving, by the communications hardware and from the partner device, an interaction indication of a user associated with the first digital user account, wherein the payment indication indicates a payment performed at the partner device by the user; and causing, by the communications hardware, transmission of an instruction set to the partner device, wherein the instruction set is configured to cause the partner device to present a notification related to the dormancy status for the at least one asset (see ¶[0065]).
Claim 11 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Claim 12 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 2 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 2.
Claim 13 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 3 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Claim 14 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 4 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 4.
Claim 15 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 5 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 5.
Claim 16 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 6 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 6.
Claim 17 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 7 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Claim 18 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 8 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 8.
Claim 19 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 9 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 9.
Claim 20 is the apparatus for performing the method of Claim 10 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-273-3955. 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.
/IRENE KANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
3/23/2026
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696