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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The claims use the term “accumulated data transfer amount” in each of the independent claims 1, 11, and 20. At ¶[0085] the Specification states: As such, the first data processing yield amount may correspond to an amount projected to be earned by the scheduled future date through using the accumulated data transfer amount to acquire an investment. […] The investment may be, for example, a high-interest savings account, treasury bills, certificates of deposit, stocks, derivatives, and/or foreign exchange currency. At ¶[0057] the specification states “There may be, however, a data transfer loss amount associated with a pull transfer. The data transfer loss amount may be known, or it may be unknown. The data transfer loss amount may be fixed and/or variable. For example, a pull transfer may result in a data transfer loss amount of, for example, $10.00, or of, for example, 2% of the total amount transferred. As another example, the data transfer loss amount associated with a pull transfer may be $10.00 plus 2% of the amount transferred.” At ¶[0049]: The accumulated resource definition may be or include a balance; for example a bank balance and/or an earned wage balance. At ¶[0080] of the Specification, it is explained that a “system determines that the accumulated data transfer amount exceeds a threshold amount” and that “the threshold amount may be a dollar amount, such as $50 or $100.”
Accordingly, “accumulated data transfer amount” is interpreted as a financial amount or value under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
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.
The claims are directed to a method (claims 11-19), system (claims 1-10) or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20) and thus fall into one or more statutory categories enumerated in 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the claims are rejected as being directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites:
determine an accumulated data transfer amount for a periodic data transfer scheduled to be pushed to a primary storage location at a future date; initiate a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount to a secondary storage location; determine an overall data amount in the secondary storage location, the overall data amount including a data processing yield amount based upon the accumulated data transfer amount, the overall data amount further including the accumulated data transfer amount less a data transfer loss amount; and initiate a transfer of a quantity of data from the secondary storage location to the primary storage location, the quantity of data comprising at least a portion of the overall data amount.
This concept falls within the groupings of mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) at least because it involves determining a transfer amount, determining an overall amount will be above a threshold and initiating a transfer.
In addition, the Specification at ¶[0049] states:
“The accumulated resource definition may be or include a balance; for example a bank balance and/or an earned wage balance.”;
and at ¶[0053] states:
“In some embodiments, the amount of accumulated resources associated with an entity may accrue over time. The accrual of accumulated resources may occur at a predetermined rate and the predetermined rate may be known to the first entity. For example, the accumulated resource definition may reflect $100.00 on a current date, and the first entity may know that this amount will increase at a fixed rate, for example, by $50.00 per day.”;
and at ¶[0057], makes reference to dollar losses due to transfers stating:
“There may be, however, a data transfer loss amount associated with a pull transfer. […] For example, a pull transfer may result in a data transfer loss amount of, for example, $10.00, or of, for example, 2% of the total amount transferred. As another example, the data transfer loss amount associated with a pull transfer may be $10.00 plus 2% of the amount transferred.”
Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, the claim can be understood to encompass mitigating risk of financial losses. Thus, the concept also falls under fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection II.A.
The claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims include:
a communications module; a processor coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor and storage locations.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and computer network components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13, the claims add determining an elapse of a time period, wherein the data processing yield amount is further based on the time period an amount need be checked against a threshold amount. This can be accomplished in the human mind or with pen and paper as part of the abstract idea and does not provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, the claims add prior to determining the elapse of the time period and providing a notification and receiving a data (a time value). This kind of data gathering and notification is part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is a client device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than Using a computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15, the claims add that the notification includes a selectable option to provide the value of the time period. This data gathering and transmitting step is performed by generic computer interface elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 recite data gathering and transmitting performed by computer and networking elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 add that the notification includes a selectable option to provide the value of a quantity. This data gathering and transmitting step is performed by computer and networking elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 specify that a time period corresponds to a future date. This is a rule or condition that is part of the abstract idea of mental process, and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 recites determining amounts by comparing values and is a mental concept and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 9 recite initiating a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer to a storage location. This is part of the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice and is carried out using generic computer elements and amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and so does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 10 adds comparing values to a threshold which is a mental process. This mental process that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 11 specifies a financial parameter of the financial transaction (amount transferred) and is part of the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice or mental process and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or 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 (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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STANLEY (US 20090319437 A1 to Stanley; Neil A) in view of BENT (US 9483762 B1 to Bent, II; Bruce R. et al).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20,
STANLEY discloses:
A system comprising: a communications module; a processor coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to (STANLEY: ¶[0090]: Computer code would monitor current interest rates and penalty scheme of the CD and when there was justification for a re-issue, notify the CD holder; ¶[0091]: notify holder of the first CD that a second CD is available which will outperform the first CD despite the penalty for early withdrawal; ¶[0098]: (notification could be by phone, email, fax, RSS, or means not yet invented; [0125]: database system; claim 25: computer controlled method; claim 38: computer program for reissuing a CD):
determine an accumulated data transfer amount for a periodic data transfer scheduled to be pushed to a primary storage location at a future date (STANLEY:¶[0030]: Determining […] the total current account value of a first CD as of a predetermined date; ¶[0008]: interest paid to the account holder or credited to other accounts on a periodic basis and Periodically, the accrued interest will be paid to the account holder or credited to other accounts; ¶[0092]: At periodic intervals (for example, daily), calculating the total account value on the calculation date.);
initiate a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount to a secondary storage location (STANLEY: ¶[0027]: a signed consent and authorization to withdraw the CD early with penalty and transfer to a new CD at the re-issuing bank the bank can proceed to execute the transfer per the depositor's request; ¶[0033]: Creating a customized second CD, using the current net cash value as initial investment, having an expiration date generally equal to the expiration of the first CD, interest handling features of the first CD and a current rate of interest offered by the re-issuing bank; ¶[0115]: In the event of a positive [(Net Benefit to Transfer--NBTT)], the depositor withdraws early (530, 532), the penalty is paid and the new CD is issued, usually for the remaining term of the original CD.);
determine an overall data amount in the secondary storage location, the overall data amount including a data processing yield amount based upon the accumulated data transfer amount, the overall data amount further including the accumulated data transfer amount less a data transfer loss amount (STANLEY: ¶[0081]: Creating a customized analysis which identifies the financial advantage of the second CD compared to the first even after accounting for the early withdrawal penalty of the first CD ; ¶[0078]: Calculating the net cash value of the first CD on the predetermined calculation day by determining its total current account value and subtracting the penalty from said value.);
Although STANLEY teaches a cash out option when issuing a second CD (see STANLEY ¶[0082]), it does not teach the following which, BENT teaches:
and initiate a transfer of a quantity of data from the secondary storage location to the primary storage location, the quantity of data comprising at least a portion of the overall data amount (BENT: col. 42, ll. 50-61: (126) FIGS. 5E-1-5E-3 show an exemplary process for performing a bypass cash sweep and in particular a deposit sweep to fund a source account, e.g., a trading account, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. The source account may be funded, at least in part, from a depository account, which may be an interest-bearing account and/or a highly liquid account, such as a bank account, money fund account, exchange-traded fund (ETF) account, to name a few. In embodiments, the depository account may be considered a destination account, even where funds are being transferred from the destination account to the source account.; figure 5E-3, step S576: Generate, by the one or more transaction management computers, electronic transaction instructions for a transfer of at least the deficiency amount from the depository account to the source account; BENT col. 45, ll. 19-24: In a step S576, the one or more transaction management computers may generate electronic transaction instructions for a transfer of at least the deficiency amount from the depository account to the source account; col. 45, ll. 65-67 to col. 46, ll. 1-22: The one or more transaction management computers may generate electronic transaction instructions for transfers of a portion of at least the deficiency amount from each of a plurality of the depository accounts to the source account. The one or more transaction management computers may then provide the electronic transaction instructions to respective depository institution computer systems via respective depository account transaction portals, causing the depository institution computer systems to execute the transfers.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13,
STANLEY and BENT teach the system of claims 1 and 21,
STANLEY further discloses:
wherein prior to determining the overall data amount in the secondary storage location, the system is further configured to: determine an elapse of a time period, wherein the data processing yield amount is further based on the time period (STANLEY: figure 5: Date, Balance, Term to Maturity, Remaining Months to Maturity, Balance to Calculate Penalty, Expected Value at CD maturity, ¶[0067]: The opportunity to create a net benefit to transfer an existing certificate of deposit depends upon the amount of the deposit; the current yield; the amount of time remaining before maturity; the early withdrawal penalty; and the new market-rate yield available for the remaining term. The result is a net benefit to transfer; [0069]: By creating a data table of alternative refinancing dates and refinancing rates, potential scenarios can be evaluated and compared to the current net benefit to transfer opportunity. For each unique CD this table presents a differential analysis between results of refinance date and rate combinations. In other words you can determine from a quick analysis of this table how much rates must rise as time passes to maintain or improve the refinance opportunity. One can also identify the amount the opportunity diminishes as time passes without rate changes or with rate reductions; [0070]: A depositor can highlight in the data table their forecast of rates at the intersection of date and rate for each remaining date of the CD. Under the rate scenario defined by this exercise the optimal refinance date is determined by selecting the date that has the highest highlighted positive net benefit to transfer.).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claims 1, 2, 21 and 13.
STANLEY further discloses:
wherein an entity is associated with the accumulated data transfer amount (STANLEY: [0072]: One feature of the present invention is to offer a reissue CD to the current CD holder which is customized to the date of expiration of the current CD.; [0098]: If the customized analysis identifies a financial advantage of the second CD, compared to the first CD, then notify holder of the first CD that a second CD is available which will outperform the first CD despite the penalty for early withdrawal),
and receive, from the client device associated with the entity, a value of the time period (STANLEY: ¶[0070]: optimal refinance date is determined by selecting the date that has the highest highlighted positive net benefit to transfer.).
STANLEY does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which BENT however, teaches:
and wherein the processor is further configured to: prior to determining the elapse of the time period, provide, to a client device associated with the entity, a notification (BENT: col. 49, ll. 1-4: receiving, at the client device from the transaction management computer system, a first electronic notification of a proposed sweep transfer from a deposit account associated with the client to the source account);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claim 1-3 and 12-14.
STANLEY teaches “provide the value of the time period” (STANLEY ¶[0070]: teaches optimal refinance date is determined by selecting the date that has the highest highlighted positive net benefit to transfer and the ability to highlight in the data table at the intersection of date and rate for each remaining date of the CD.).
STANLEY discloses a notification feature which advise the customer automatically when re-issuing would be profitable at ¶[0090] but does not disclose the following, which BENT teaches:
wherein the notification includes a selectable option to provide the value of the time period (BENT: col. 48, ll. 4-20: The source account transaction portal, which may comprise a graphical user interface […], may comprise transaction parameter options for transactions from the source account. Transaction parameter options can include […] transaction time parameters (e.g., to execute the transaction at a specify date and/or time), […]). The client device may transmit to the source institution computer system via the source account transaction portal electronic transaction instructions comprising transaction parameters (e.g., parameters input and/or selected by the client); BENT col. 56, ll. 50-57: Listed below are example transaction setting types where a value may be input, an option selected, or a default setting used, to trigger generation of a rule using the setting. In embodiments, a setting may comprise a value (e.g., a threshold value), which may be an absolute value.; col. 60, ll. 22-35: the notification may provide a time limit within which the user must act to prevent the transfer successfully. The notification 916 may comprise instructions on how to prevent the transfer, a selectable option (e.g., a rendered GUI element, such as a button) to prevent the transfer, […].; col. 59, ll. 45-50: In embodiments, the interface may include a transfer amount input element (e.g., a text entry box, a drop-down menu, to name a few; col. 42, ll. 1-2: inputting required transaction parameter information; col. 48, ll. 60-65: the source account transaction portal comprising transaction parameter options for transactions from the source account).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 16,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claims 1-2 and 12-13,
STANLEY discloses:
wherein an entity is associated with the accumulated data transfer amount (STANLEY: [0072]: One feature of the present invention is to offer a reissue CD to the current CD holder which is customized to the date of expiration of the current CD.; [0098]: If the customized analysis identifies a financial advantage of the second CD, compared to the first CD, then notify holder of the first CD that a second CD is available which will outperform the first CD despite the penalty for early withdrawal),
and wherein the processor is further configured to: prior to initiating the transfer of the quantity of data from the secondary storage location to the primary storage location (STANLEY: col. 60, ll. 24-31: the notification 916 may indicate that a portion of a user's funds will be moved to a particular depository institution unless the user takes an action to prevent the transfer. In embodiments, the notification may provide a time limit within which the user must act to prevent the transfer successfully. The notification 916 may comprise instructions on how to prevent the transfer, a selectable option (e.g., a rendered GUI element, such as a button) to prevent the transfer,),
STANLEY discloses a notification feature which advise the customer automatically when re-issuing would be profitable at ¶[0090] but does not disclose the following, which BENT teaches:
provide, to a client device associated with the entity, a notification; and receive, from the client device associated with the entity, a value of the quantity of data (BENT col. 48, ll. 4-20: The source account transaction portal, which may comprise a graphical user interface […], may comprise transaction parameter options for transactions from the source account. Transaction parameter options can include order amounts (e.g., buy amounts, sell amounts, limit amounts, […]). The client device may transmit to the source institution computer system via the source account transaction portal electronic transaction instructions comprising transaction parameters (e.g., parameters input and/or selected by the client);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 17,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13 and 16.
STANLEY does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which BENT however, teaches:
wherein the notification includes a selectable option to provide the value of the quantity of data (BENT: col. 60, ll. 29-30: The notification 916 may comprise […] a selectable option (e.g., a rendered GUI element, such as a button); col. 74, ll. 10-15: computer system may receive from the client device, along with the approval of the allocation, a transfer amount via a transfer amount input element of the destination institution management graphical user interface; .col. 59, ll. 40-52: user may select the approve option 904 to allow the deposit sweep transaction […]. In embodiments, the interface may include a transfer amount input element (e.g., a text entry box, a drop-down menu, to name a few), by which the user can specify an amount of funds to allocate and/or transfer[…] or by which the user can specify a maximum permissible amount of funds to allocate and/or transfer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 18,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claims 1, 2, 12 and 13.
STANLEY does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which BENT however, teaches:
wherein the elapse of the time period corresponds to the future date (BENT: ¶[0067]: The opportunity to create a net benefit to transfer an existing certificate of deposit depends […] the amount of time remaining before maturity; the early withdrawal penalty; and the new market-rate yield available for the remaining term. The result is a net benefit to transfer; [0045] Offering the customer said second CD having an expiration date generally equal to the first CD; ¶[097]: Comparing said total value at maturity of the first CD with a second CD issueable on calculation date from net proceeds of the first CD at an interest rate selected by the issuer having a term expiring generally equal to the term of the first CD.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 19,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
STANLEY further discloses:
wherein prior to initiating the pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount to a secondary storage location, the system is further caused to: determine that the data processing yield amount is expected to be greater than the data transfer loss amount at a date on or after the scheduled future date if a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount is performed before the scheduled future date (STANLEY: ¶[0098]: customized analysis identifies a financial advantage of the second CD, compared to the first CD, then notify holder of the first CD that a second CD is available which will outperform the first CD despite the penalty for early withdrawal; STANLEY ¶[0115]-¶[0116]: [0115]: In the event of a positive NBTT, the depositor withdraws early (530, 532), the penalty is paid and the new CD is issued, usually for the remaining term of the original CD.; [0116]: If the NBTT is not sufficient to warrant an early withdrawal and transfer, (534), the transfer authorization is cancelled (536) or the new bank can request authorization for transfer of funds anyway, (538) such as if there are other benefits for the transfer, such as an above market interest rate with call features retained by the bank as an enticement to the depositor to switch to the new bank.).
Regarding claim(s) 9,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claim 1,
STANLEY discloses:
a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount (see STANLEY(¶[0009]: [0009] The current net cash value of a CD at any time is calculated by subtracting any applicable early withdrawal penalty from the total current account value of the CD (total of principal and accrued interest balances).; ¶[0032]-¶[0033]: Calculating the net cash value of the first CD on the predetermined calculation day by determining its total current account value and subtracting the penalty from said value; [0033] Creating a customized second CD, using the current net cash value as initial investment ; ¶[0027]: after depositor provides authorization to withdraw the CD early with penalty and transfer to a new CD at the re-issuing bank the bank can proceed to execute the transfer per the depositor's request. figure 2: Bank executes early withdrawal and balance transfer to bank 532).
STANLEY does not disclose the following, which BENT, however teaches:
wherein prior to initiating a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount, the system is further caused to: initiate a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount to the primary storage location (BENT: col. 11, ll. 45-61: determining […] that the source account balance exceeds the source account maximum balance; col. 52, ll. 26-28: determine that the source account balance exceeds the source account maximum balance; BENT: col. 31, ll. 30-33: clients may access their funds for deposits and withdrawals from various transaction sources; col. 11, ll. 45-61: determining […] that the source account balance exceeds the source account maximum balance; determining […] an excess amount based at least in part upon the source account balance and the source account maximum balance;[…] generating […] instructions for a transfer of at least the excess amount from the source account to the depository account; col. 52, ll. 29-32: transfer of at least the excess amount from the source account to the depository account)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim 10,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claim 1.
STANLEY does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which BENT however, teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: prior to initiating a pull transfer of the accumulated data transfer amount to a secondary storage location, determine that the accumulated data transfer amount exceeds a threshold amount (BENT: col. 6, ll. 50-60: determining, […], that the depository account balance equals the deficiency amount or exceeds the deficiency amount by at least a depository account balance threshold amount; generating, […], electronic transaction instructions for a transfer of at least the deficiency amount from the depository account to the source account; col. 11, ll. 45-61: determining […] that the source account balance exceeds the source account maximum balance; determining […] an excess amount based at least in part upon the source account balance and the source account maximum balance;[…] generating […] instructions for a transfer of at least the excess amount from the source account to the depository account; col. 52, ll. 29-32: transfer of at least the excess amount from the source account to the depository account).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine/modify the system/method of STANLEY, which discloses notifying deposit holders of better returns (STANLEY ¶[0098]) and methods of accelerating transitions to higher yielding investments/deposits (STANLEY ¶[0064]) with the technique of BENT which discloses improvements in cash sweep systems (BENT col. 1, ll. 20-27) in order to provides greater flexibility to execute deposit sweep transactions (BENT col. 1, ll. 59-63) and provide timely notification (BENT col. 2, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim 11,
STANLEY and BENT teach the limitations of claim 1,
STANLEY further discloses:
wherein the quantity of data comprises an entirety of the overall data amount (STANLEY: ¶[0009]: The current net cash value of a CD at any time is calculated by subtracting any applicable early withdrawal penalty from the total current account value of the CD (total of principal and accrued interest balances; [0029]-[0033]: there is a method of re-issuing CDs by determining the total current account value of a first CD as of a predetermined date; [0031] Determining the contractual penalty for early withdrawal on said predetermined date; [0032] Calculating the net cash value of the first CD on the predetermined calculation day by determining its total current account value and subtracting the penalty from said value; [0033] Creating a customized second CD, using the current net cash value as initial investment; ¶[0112]: The bank offers a customized time deposit based on the dimensions of the existing deposit. In one embodiment, the new account deposit amount will be same as the current funds available from the existing time deposit account after paying any applicable early withdrawal penalty.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0048929 A1 to Parento teaches a GUI for notifying a user and receiving a selection regarding payroll disbursement options to an employee.
US 2015/0073993 A1 to Robelo teaches sweeping funds from a second account into a first account based on thresholds.
US 8,429,079 B1 to CAMEO teaches a method of transferring funds to avoid an overdraft penalty.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOLKO HAMERSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
BOLKO HAMERSKI
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BOLKO M HAMERSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694