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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification received on 11 July 2025 are accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12063168. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘168 anticipates the instant application claims.
Instant Application
Patent No. 12063168
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 16 and 20)
A computer system comprising:
a communications module;
one or more processors coupled to the communications module; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to:
generate a message based on an identification of a resource optimization opportunity;
facilitate access to a resource prior to a defined date by a transmission of the generated message to a second computer system prior to the defined date.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 20)
A computer system comprising: a communications module;
one or more processors coupled to the communications module; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to:
obtain one or more parameters of a resource demand, the one or more parameters including at least a defined date;
identify, based on a projected demand for a computing resource, a resource optimization opportunity prior to the defined date;
generate a message based on the identification of the resource optimization opportunity;
identify a second computer system based on the resource demand; and
facilitate access to the computing resource prior to the defined date by a transmission of the generated message to the identified second computer system prior to the defined date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danielak et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0379644), hereinafter Danielak.
Regarding claim 1, Danielak discloses
A computer system comprising: (Fig. 1, 131; [0025])
a communications module; ([0026]; Fig. 1; i.e. The server provides information to a client device via network. Thereby inherently containing a communications module.)
one or more processors coupled to the communications module; and ([0026])
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to: ([0026])
generate a message (Fig. 8; i.e. message to user about shortfall and amount to cover) based on an identification of a resource optimization opportunity; (i.e. action to cover an identified shortfall) and (Fig. 8; [0139])
facilitate access to a resource (i.e. money to cover shortfall) prior to a defined date ([0089]; [0091]; i.e. date of a scheduled transfer from a source account to a destination account) by a transmission of the generated message to a second computer system (Fig. 1, 102; i.e. client device of the user) prior to the defined date. ([0129]; [0139]; [0133]; [0107]; i.e. Prior to the scheduled transfer of funds from a source account to a destination account the server will identify a shortfall. The server determines an action to take to cover the shortfall, such as access the shortfall funds from a shortfall account. The choice to initiate the action is presented to the user using a generated message to the client device of the user. If the user selects the to initiate, the server accesses the funds from the shortfall account and transfers the funds to the destination account. Therefore, the transmission of the message to the user facilitates the server accessing the assets to cover the shortfall.)
Regarding claim 2, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to identify, based on a projected demand (i.e. amount of funds to transfer from source account to destination account) for the resource, the resource optimization opportunity (i.e. action to cover an identified shortfall) prior to the defined date. ([0089]; [0091]; [0107])
Regarding claim 3, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 2, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to identify the resource optimization opportunity include instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to detect a projected shortfall event. ([0089]; [0093])
Regarding claim 4, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 2, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to identify the resource optimization opportunity include instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to:
detect a favorable conversion rate of the resource; and ([0096-0097]; i.e. It is detected that liquidating assets in the source account with a conversion rate of 5% is more favorable than the 7% rate for accessing funds from the shortfall account.)
determine that the resource is not expected to experience a shortfall event by an advancement of a transfer associated with a resource demand. ([0100]; i.e. It is determined that liquidating the assets in the source account will not cause a shortfall event of having to access the shortfall account/shortfall event.)
Regarding claim 5, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 2, the identification of the resource optimization opportunity is based on one or more of:
a determination that a current conversion rate for satisfying a resource demand is a favorable conversion rate;
a determination that a projected account balance is expected to remain above a threshold; and
a determination that an expected account balance will fall below a threshold. (i.e. amount of funds that should be transferred) ([0072]; [0074])
Regarding claim 6, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the generated message includes a transfer of an amount of the resource. ([0139]; Fig. 8; i.e. When the user selects the generated message the shortfall funds are transferred to the destination account.)
Regarding claim 7, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to obtain one or more parameters of a resource demand, (i.e. user demand to transfer funds from one account to another) the one or more parameters including at least the defined date. (i.e. first day of month) ([0049], lines 22-25; [0073]; [0136])
Regarding claim 8, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the one or more parameters include one or more thresholds used to identify the resource optimization opportunity. ([0049]; [0091])
Regarding claim 9, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the one or more parameters include one or more variables (i.e. amount of funds in source account) to be used in the identification of the resource optimization opportunity. ([0074]; Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 10, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the one or more parameters include a flag (i.e. user option) indicating that fulfillment of the resource demand may be advanced in response to the identification of the resource optimization opportunity. ([0103])
Regarding claim 11, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer system, further cause the computer system to identify the second computer system based on the resource demand. ([0029]; [0128]; i.e. Based on the resource demand to transfer funds from the source account to the destination account, the server will identify the user’s device in order to notify the user’s device of the transfer.)
Regarding claim 12, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the resource demand includes a request for payment. (i.e. payment of rent) ([0073])
Regarding claim 13, Danielak discloses
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the generated message (Fig. 8, 830) includes a modified version of the resource demand. (i.e. scheduled transfer) (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 16, this method claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, this method claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, this method claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 7 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielak in view of Daya et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0270168), hereinafter Daya.
Regarding claim 21, Danielak shows all of the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above. However, Danielak fails to show
The computer system of claim 7, wherein obtaining the one or more parameters of the resource demand includes performing natural language processing operations to obtain the one or more parameters.
Daya shows
wherein obtaining the one or more parameters ([0040]; i.e. data of electronic record such as amount to be paid/due date for payment) of the resource demand includes performing natural language processing operations to obtain the one or more parameters. ([0046])
Daya and Danielak are considered analogous art because they involve users or payors providing payment requests to a system. Danielak shows that a user may provide transfer information such as accounts and dates in which to transfer funds. Daya shows that the transfer information may be provided in a form that is analyzed by the system to identify the information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danielak to incorporate the teachings of Daya wherein obtaining the one or more parameters of the resource demand includes performing natural language processing operations to obtain the one or more parameters. Doing so provides that the user may provide the information in different formats.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Solovev et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0328879) shows transferring funds between banks using different currencies.
Jonas et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0294413) shows transferring funds based on currency conversion rates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights