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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to remarks received 12/18/2025 and claims earliest priority from provisional application 62411118, filed 10/21/2016.
Claim 7 newly added.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea since claim 1 is not directed to a method of organizing human activity; rather, the claim recites a computerized system controlling access to data and verification workflow; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The present claims are directed to confirming financial account information between a financial institution, an auditor, and a customer, which constitutes a commercial or legal interaction performed in the financial auditing context. Specifically, claim 1 recites steps and components that facilitate:
verification of customer identity
confirmation of financial account information
presentation of account information for confirmation and disagreement
flagging of accounts where disagreement occurs
These limitations collectively describe the practice of verifying and confirming financial account data between parties, which is a longstanding commercial practice in auditing and financial record verification. Implementing this practice using generic computing components such as portals, dashboards, and user interfaces does not remove the claims from category of organizing human activity, but instead merely automates the same financial confirmation process using conventional computer technology. Accordingly, the claims recite a method of organizing human activity in the form of a commercial interaction involving financial account confirmation, which falls within a recognized category of abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite technical mechanisms that control access to data and verification workflows rather than human conduct. However, the recited elements, such as :
a financial institution portal
an auditor portal
a customer portal
dashboards and user interfaces
These elements represent generic computer components performing their conventional functions of receiving, displaying, and processing information. These components merely implement the underlying business process of confirming financial accounts and resolving discrepancies between parties. The claims therefore do not recite a technological improvement to computer functionality, but instead use conventional computing elements as tools to perform a financial auditing practice.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the applicant further argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the system prevents data leakage and enforces role-based access. This argument is not persuasive. While the claims recite verifying a customer’s identity before presenting financial account information, this limitation merely represents a conventional data access control technique, which is routinely used in computer systems to restrict access to sensitive information. Such identity verification and access control mechanisms do not constitute a technological improvement, but rather represent routine security measures implemented using generic computing components. Similarly, the claimed dashboards, portals, and monitoring functionality merely display and track information related to the financial confirmation process, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity associated with the abstract business practice. When considered as an ordered combination, the claim elements simply implement the abstract idea of financial account confirmation using conventional computer technology, without improving the functioning of the computer itself or another technological field.
Under Step 2B, the Applicant argues the claims recite an inventive concept, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements recited in the claims, including portals, dashboards, user interfaces, and identity verification systems; are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions, such a receiving information, verifying user credentials, presenting data, and storing confirmation results. Applicant has not provided evidence that these components or their arrangement represent anything beyond conventional computer implementation of the abstract financial confirmation process. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation Under- 35 USC § 112 (f)
Claim limitation “identification verification system configured to communicate with a third-party identification verification server to verify an identification of at a selected customer” is interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the term “configured to” is a generic placeholder that does not itself recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function.
Accordingly, the limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, including identification verification module 322 communicating with third-party identification verification server 326, as described for example in Paragraphs 23-31 and Figure 3 of the Specifications.
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 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea
without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject
matter because independent claim 1 is directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for account confirmation, i.e. sales
activities or behaviors, and thus grouped as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity". The claim as a whole
and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1,
stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows:
An accounts confirmation system comprising:
allow one or more representatives of a financial institution to coordinate with an auditor confirmation of
financial data regarding a plurality of existing customer accounts of the financial institution, allow one or more
representatives of the financial institution to modify a template email to be sent to a customer of the financial
institution to initiate a confirmation process, allow one or more representatives of the financial institution to
upload a universe of data regarding a plurality of customer accounts of the financial institution to be confirmed, allow one or more representatives of the financial institution to review a sample chosen by the auditor and identify one or more customer accounts to whom the auditor should not communicate during the confirmation process, and present a substantial real-time status of one or more parameters regarding the confirmation process; allow the auditor to access at least a portion of the universe of data regarding the plurality of customer accounts of the financial institution to be confirmed, request information from the financial institution regarding the confirmation process, and wherein the auditor portal includes an auditor dashboard to provide a substantial real time status on the confirmation process and modify one or more status parameters of the confirmation process; and communicate to verify an identification of at a selected customer of the financial institution to be confirmed without presenting any existing financial data of an account associated with the selected customer of the financial institution to be confirmed, present a user interface upon verifying the identification of the selected customer to allow selection by the selected customer on the user interface to agree or disagree with accuracy of financial data of the selected customer's account that predates any information entered; and flag any account in which the selected customer of the financial institution disagrees with accuracy of financial data presented on the user interface.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer
components. There is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human
activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors
suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of modify, initiate, upload,
review, access, communicate, flag and present data. The computer components are recited at a high-level of
generality (i.e.as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communication information over a generic
network, see at least paragraphs 20& 23-31 of the specifications) such that it amounts no more than adding the
words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea
on a computer, or merely uses computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP
2106.05(h). Furthermore, the steps to "communicate with a third-party identification verification server to verify an identification of a selected customer of the financial institution" and "present a substantial real-time status of
one or more parameters regarding the confirmation process" are considered adding insignificant extra-solution
activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements, i.e. "a financial institution portal", "a
template design system", "an account data upload system", "a sample review system", "a request engine", "a
customer portal", "a user interface" and "a financial institution dashboard" that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably
programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding
the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see
MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the steps to "communicate with a third-party identification verification server to
verify an identification of a selected customer of the financial institution" and "present a substantial real-time
status of one or more parameters regarding the confirmation process" are considered adding insignificant extra-
solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using
generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1
is not patent eligible.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of without significantly
more. The dependent claims 2-7 when analyzed as a whole an in an ordered combination are held to be patent
ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract
idea. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series for account confirmation) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely
carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the
instruction to implement the abstract (i.e. a series of steps for account confirmation) in a particular, albeit
well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform
the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian, Charles Fox (WO 2005/111903 A1, herein Fox) in view of Girolamo Barbera et al. (US 2018/0046944 A1, herein Barbera).
As per claim 1, Fox teaches an accounts confirmation system comprising (Fox page 8 lines 23-30):
a financial institution portal configured to allow one or more representatives of a financial institution to coordinate with an auditor confirmation of financial data regarding a plurality of existing customer accounts of the financial institution, […], wherein the financial institution portal includes an account data upload system configured to allow one or more representatives of the financial institution to upload a universe of data regarding a plurality of customer accounts of the financial institution to be confirmed, wherein the financial institution portal includes a sample review system configured to allow one or more representatives of the financial institution to review a sample chosen by the auditor and identify one or more customer accounts to whom the auditor should not communicate during the confirmation process, and wherein the financial institution portal includes a financial institution dashboard configured to present a substantial real-time status of one or more parameters regarding the confirmation process (Fox page 4 lines 5-10, page 8 lines 23-30 and page 12 lines 1-13);
an auditor portal configured to allow the auditor to access at least a portion of the universe of data regarding the plurality of customer accounts of the financial institution to be confirmed, wherein the auditor portal includes a request engine configured to request information from the financial institution regarding the confirmation process, and wherein the auditor portal includes an auditor dashboard to provide a substantial real-time status on the confirmation process and modify one or more status parameters of the confirmation process (Fox page 19 lines 6-15, page 21 lines 10-17 and page 24 lines 8-15); and
a customer portal including an identification verification system configured to communicate with a third-party identification verification server to verify an identification of at a selected customer of the financial institution to be confirmed without presenting any existing financial data of an account associated with the selected customer of the financial institution to be confirmed, wherein the customer portal includes an account verification system configured to present a user interface upon verifying the identification of the selected customer to allow selection by the selected customer on the user interface to agree or disagree with accuracy of financial data of the selected customer's account that predates any information entered through the user interface (Fox page 24 lines 1-14); and
wherein the auditor portal is configured to flag any account in which the selected customer of the financial institution disagrees with accuracy of financial data presented on the user interface (Fox page 19 lines 6-15 and page 21 lines 10-17).
Fox fails to explicitly teach; however, Barbera further teaches:
[wherein the financial institution portal includes a template design system configured to allow one or more representatives of the financial institution to modify a template email to be sent to a customer of the financial institution to initiate a confirmation process], (Barbera ¶¶ [383-384]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the template email modification functionality of Barbera into the accounts confirmation system of Fox in order to allow representatives of the financial institution to modify confirmation emails sent to customer initiating the confirmation process, thereby improving flexibility and usability of automated confirmation communications.
As per claim 2, the combination of Fox and Barbera teach the accounts confirmation system of claim 1, Fox further teaches:
wherein the financial institution dashboard is configured to present metrics at least with regard to outstanding confirmations that are paper-based and electronic confirmations (Fox page 19 lines 10-18 and page 21 lines 12-15).
As per claim 3, the combination of Fox and Barbera teach the accounts confirmation system of claim 1, Fox further teaches:
wherein the user interface of the customer portal includes confirmation on one or more of account number, balance, interest rate, and/or current maturity date (Fox page 19 lines 16-25 and page 24 lines 6-14).
As per claim 4, the combination of Fox and Barbera teach the accounts confirmation system of claim 3, Fox further teaches:
wherein the user interface includes a portion from which a user can agree or disagree with accuracy of the account number, balance, interest rate, and/or current maturity date (Fox page 24 lines 1-14).
As per claim 5, the combination of Fox and Barbera teach the accounts confirmation system of claim 1, Fox further teaches:
wherein the customer portal is configured to determine a score representing a confidence level with which the third-party identification verification server verifies the identification of the selected customer of the financial institution (Fox page 16 lines 1-6 and page 18 lines 6-12).
As per claim 6, the combination of Fox and Barbera teach the accounts confirmation system of claim 5, Fox further teaches:
wherein the customer portal is configured to present the user interface responsive to the score exceeding a threshold score from the third-party identification verification server (Fox page 16 liens 1-6).
As per claim 7, the combination of Fox and Barbera teach the accounts confirmation system of claim 1, Fox further teaches: wherein the user interface of the customer portal is configured to enable presentation of financial account data of the selected customer only after successful verification of the selected customer's identity by the third-party identity verification server without transmitting or rendering any existing financial account data of the selected customer prior to the successful verification (Fox page 16 lines 1-6 and page 19 lines 16-25).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696