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
This action is in response to the election filed 3/16/2026. Applicant has elected Invention III (claims 7, 14, 20) without traverse. Claim 13 was previously listed as one of the linking claims due to a typographical error. Claim 13 was also assigned to Invention II (non-elected) and therefore will not be examined. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20 are pending for examination.
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 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recite the abstract idea of “moving amount between accounts based on net, target and total actual amount change”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (mitigating risk; managing financial resources) (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claims 1, 9 and 16 recite “receiving, by an asset management…, an event message that includes a target amount change associated with a first account, an actual amount change associated with the first account, and an identifier of a segment of the event message”, “generating, by an … of the asset management …for a first period of time, a net target amount change associated with the first account and a net actual amount change associated with the first account from a plurality of event messages having the identifier of the segment, the plurality of event messages comprising the event message, and the net target amount change generated based in part on the target amount change and the net actual amount change generated based in part on the actual amount change of the event message”, “generating, by the … of the asset management …based on the net target amount change associated with the first account and the net actual amount change associated with the first account, a total target amount change associated with the first account and a total actual amount change associated with the first account for a second period of time”, “generating, by a planning … of the asset management …, an action that will move an amount between the first account and a second account based on the total actual amount change generated by the aggregator” and “ executing, by an action … of the asset management …, the action causing movement of the total target amount change associated with the first account”. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20 are dependent on claims 1, 9 and 16 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 16. Therefore, claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20 recite the same abstract idea of “moving amount between accounts based on net, target and total actual amount change”. The limitations recited in the depending claims (For example, the maintaining, receiving, accessing steps and the specific time period and message used) are further details of the abstract idea and not significantly more. The concept described in claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20 are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of independent claims 1, 9 and 16 such as “system”, “platform”, “aggregator”, “executor”, “memory”, “processing system”, “medium” and additional elements of depending claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 20 (for example: “application programming interface (API) ,“interface”, “memory”, “system”) represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, as the additional elements do not provide a practical application, they do not improve computer functionality and do not improve another technology or technical field.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 8,589,289 B1) in view of Abeles (US 2012/0005093 A1) and To (12,147,853 B2).
As per Claims 1, 9, 16
a non-transitory memory storing instructions and a processing system coupled with the memory and configured to executed the instructions causing the system to perform operations *claim 16, see at least column 5, lines 39-45 (one or more computers comprising memory wherein the memory stores computer-readable instructions comprising program code that, when executed, cause the one or more computers to perform steps; one or more computer-readable media)
receiving, by an asset management system, an event message that includes a target amount change (prospective deposit/transfer) associated with a first account, an actual amount change associated with the first account, see at least column 9 (received…electronically…detailed or summary information for each client account which has activity in a given period; obtaining net transfer information associated with transfer of funds), column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system), column 13 (generate and/or send an electronic message or other communication…with information about a prospective deposit/transfer or withdrawal/transfer)
generating, by an aggregator of the asset management system for a first period of time, a net actual amount change associated with the first account, see at least column 3 (obtaining a net transfer amount; calculating… a net of one or more deposit/transfer amounts and one or more withdrawal/transfer amounts to obtain transfer amount), column 4 (calculating…. a net of the one or more …transfer amounts…from multiple of the client accounts to obtain the net transfer amount), column 5 (credit information and/or debit information applied to or against a respective client account for one or more sub periods of time), column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system)
generating, by an aggregator of the asset management system for a first period of time, a net target amount change associated with the first account, the net target amount change generated based in part on the target amount change, see at least column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system), column 3 (obtaining a net transfer amount; calculating… a net of one or more deposit/transfer amounts and one or more withdrawal/transfer amounts to obtain transfer amount), column 4 (calculating…. a net of the one or more …transfer amounts…from multiple of the client accounts to obtain the net transfer amount), column 13 (generate and/or send an electronic message or other communication…with information about a prospective deposit/transfer or withdrawal/transfer), column 28 (proposed transfer one at least one second withdrawal/transfer amount to determine whether the …target…will be met by the proposed transfer; change the at least one second withdrawal/transfer amount)
the net actual amount change generated based in part on the actual amount change of the event message, see at least column 3 (obtaining a net transfer amount; calculating… a net of one or more deposit/transfer amounts and one or more withdrawal/transfer amounts to obtain transfer amount), column 4 (calculating…. a net of the one or more …transfer amounts...from multiple of the client accounts to obtain the net transfer amount)
generating, by the aggregator of the asset management system based on the net actual amount change associated with the first account, a total actual amount change associated with the first account for a second period of time, see at least column 3 (obtaining a net transfer amount; calculating… a net of one or more deposit/transfer amounts and one or more withdrawal/transfer amounts to obtain transfer amount), column 4 (calculating…. a net of the one or more …transfer amounts...from multiple of the client accounts to obtain the net transfer amount), column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system), column 9 (multiple net transfers; transactions occurring during one or more particular time periods)
generating, by a planning system of the asset management platform, an action that will move an amount between the first account and a second account based on the total actual amount change generated by the aggregator, see at least column 21 (net transfer amounts; second withdrawal/transfer amount ….to transaction accounts…to reconcile all or part of the overdraft from…transaction accounts), column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system), column 20 (recommend and/or actual withdrawal/transfer amounts)
executing, by an action executor of the asset management platform, the action causing movement of the total target amount change associated with the first account, see at least column 21 (net transfer amounts; second withdrawal/transfer amount ….to transaction accounts…to reconcile all or part of the overdraft from…transaction accounts), column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system), column 20 (recommend and/or actual withdrawal/transfer amounts), column 23 (net transfer amount; net or withdrawal/transfer amounts and fund deposit/transfer amounts …that may be accumulated and netted), column 28 (proposed transfer one at least one second withdrawal/transfer amount to determine whether the …target…will be met by the proposed transfer; change the at least one second withdrawal/transfer amount)
O’Donnell (‘289) discloses generating, by the aggregator of the asset management system based on the target amount change associated with the first account, a total target amount change associated with the first account for a second period of time, see at least column 3 (obtaining a net transfer amount; calculating… a net of one or more deposit/transfer amounts and one or more withdrawal/transfer amounts to obtain transfer amount), column 4 (calculating…. a net of the one or more …transfer amounts...from multiple of the client accounts to obtain the net transfer amount), column 7 (source institutions may be…asset managers; interact with the clients that are placing or authorizing the respective clients’ funds to go into and/or be managed by the system), column 20 (recommend and/or actual withdrawal/transfer amounts), column 28 (proposed transfer one at least one second withdrawal/transfer amount to determine whether the …target…will be met by the proposed transfer; change the at least one second withdrawal/transfer amount), column 9 (multiple net transfers; transactions occurring during one or more particular time periods), but fails to explicitly disclose generate a total target amount change based on net amount. Abeles (‘093) teaches generate a total target amount change based on net amount, see at least paragraph 0009 (calculate an amount of available funds by subtracting the funds reserved…from the amount of funds available; determining …how much money to transfer to the second account according to the net amount of available funds; amounts of money are transferred to the second account). Both O’Donnel and Abeles are directed toward transferring amount from account. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify O’Donnell’s invention to include generate a total target amount change based on net amount. One would have been motivated for the benefit of reducing risk.
O’Donnell (‘289) discloses the changes associated with the first account are generated from a plurality of event messages, the plurality of event messages comprising the event message, column 13 (generate and/or send an electronic message or other communication…with information about a prospective deposit/transfer or withdrawal/transfer), column 28 (sending one or more instructions ….to withdraw/transfer funds) column 4 (calculating…. a net of the one or more …transfer amounts…from multiple of the client accounts to obtain the net transfer amount), but fails to explicitly disclose receiving, an identifier of a segment of the event message, the messages having the identifier of the segment. TO (‘853) teaches receiving, an identifier of a segment of event message, the messages having the identifier of the segment, see at least column 8 (each message includes one or more fields, each fields having a field identifier…event identifier; field identifier can optionally be referred to as an event type identifier; each corresponding field in a message series correspond to a specific type of event; portion of the field labeled with the event identified in the …message) and column 7 (an account, the field is the account value, the account balance ….each transaction is an event). Both O’Donnor and TO are directed to transferring money from one account to another. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify O’Donnell’s invention to include receiving, an identifier of a segment of the event message, the messages having the identifier of the segment. One would have been motivated for the benefit of organizing data more easily.
As per Claims 2, 10
O’Donnell (‘289) discloses wherein the first period of time is less than the second period of time, see at least column 10, lines 55-61 (extend the time of day …. place into and/or withdraw from and /or reallocate funds), column 9 (one or more particular time periods)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 8,589,289 B1) in view of Abeles (US 2012/0005093 A1) and To (12,147,853 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dambman et al. (US 2023/0335236 A1).
As per Claim 5
O’Donnell (‘289) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the event message comprises an application programming interface (API) event message, and the API event message is received an API endpoint exposed by an interface of the asset management system. Dambman (‘236) teaches event message comprises an application programming interface (API) event message, and the API event message is received an API endpoint exposed by an interface of an asset management system, see at least paragraph 0046 (systems; asset management) and paragraph 0064 (application programming interface configured to provide one or more endpoints for data sources publishing… event service application programming interface; event messages). Both O’Donnor and Dambman are directed to managing assets. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify O’Donnell’s invention to include event message comprises an application programming interface (API) event message, and the API event message is received an API endpoint exposed by an interface of an asset management system. One would have been motivated for the benefit of increasing efficiency.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 have been searched and reviewed. The limitations recited in claims 7, 14 and 20, considered as a whole (including all limitations from the independent claims), are not taught by the prior arts found in examiner’s search and STIC search. Therefore, no rejection under 102/103 is made.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Crawford (US 2016/0125408 A1), directed to financial management system and transferring funds amount accounts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 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, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights