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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “system”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “organizing data and determining a future value” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk is similar to budgeting or projecting future expected values based on previous data), and managing personal behavior or relationships (budgeting similar to tracking financial transactions is a type of personal behavior management)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites receiving a request for data associated with an account related to an external account system, accessing the external account, receiving the transaction data from the external account system, categorizing transactions associated with the transaction data into one or more transaction groups, estimating, for a group of the one or more transaction groups and based on transaction amounts associated with a subset of the transactions related to the group, an estimated attribute value associated with an attribute for the group, determining, based on the estimated attribute value, an expected future value
associated with the attribute, and providing the expected future value. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as one ore more processors, one or more memories, an API, an external account system, an interactive user interface 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of organizing data and determining a future value.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of organizing data and determining a future value using computer technology (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 22-28, 30-35, and 36-40 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldron US 2011/0295731.
As per claim 21:
Waldron discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for data associated with an account related to an external
account system (¶¶ [0034], [0036]-[0038] “transactions” also includes recurring transactions and scheduled transactions);
accessing the external account system via an application programming interface
(API) of the external account system, wherein the API is configured to query the external account system for transaction data associated with the account (¶ [0048] Processor 14 or other processor such as ASIC may execute an application programming interface (“API”) 40 that interfaces with any resident programs, such as financial account monitoring application 18, purchase transaction predictor routine 24, financial advice alert application 28 or the like stored in the memory 16 of the apparatus., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the API used here are intended to operate and function in the typical manner an API would, in that an API defines the kinds of calls or requests that can be made, how to make them, the data formats that should be used, the conventions that follow and are widely used, especially in financial aggregator applications, Fig 2 ‘API’);
receiving the transaction data from the external account system (¶¶ [0034], [0036]-[0038] “transactions” also includes recurring transactions and scheduled transactions and a series of transactions; [0052] discloses the transactions can be requested and identified by a period of time, both large and small, ¶¶ [0052]-[0053] small amount or large dollar, date and type of transaction are all identified, debits, deposits, etc);
categorizing transactions associated with the transaction data into one or more
transaction groups (¶¶ [0044] [0058], [0064] type of transaction reads on category of transaction);
estimating, for a group of the one or more transaction groups and based on
transaction amounts associated with a subset of the transactions related to the group, an estimated attribute value associated with an attribute for the group (¶¶ [0038]-[0041] financial transaction predictor routine reads on estimating an attribute value, can be for the group of transactions associated with a period of time or a particular user etc);
determining, based on the estimated attribute value, an expected future value
associated with the attribute (¶¶ [0038]-[0041] financial transaction predictor routine reads on estimating an attribute value, can be for the group of transactions associated with a period of time or a particular user etc; Figures 1-3; [0053] predict the approximate amount and/or predicted future financial transaction); and
providing, via an interactive user interface the expected future value (Fig 3 communicating the alert to the customer reads on ‘providing an out signal’).As per claim 24:
Waldron further discloses the system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: categorizing the transactions based on one or more sources of the transactions (¶¶ [0044] [0058], [0064] type of transaction reads on source of the transactions).
As per claim 25:
Waldron further discloses the system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: identifying income data in the transaction data (¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0032] “direct deposit paychecks or recurring payments” are used by the system to predict income stream and free cash flow); and
determining, based at least in part on the income data, projected future income data (¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0032] “direct deposit paychecks or recurring payments” are used by the system to predict income stream and free cash flow).
As per claim 26:
Waldron further discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the API is configured to access the external account system based at least in part on one or more permissions (¶ [0048] Processor 14 or other processor such as ASIC may execute an application programming interface (“API”) 40 that interfaces with any resident programs, such as financial account monitoring application 18, purchase transaction predictor routine 24, financial advice alert application 28 or the like stored in the memory 16 of the apparatus., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the API used here are intended to operate and function in the typical manner an API would, in that an API defines the kinds of calls or requests that can be made, how to make them, the data formats that should be used, the conventions that follow and are widely used, especially in financial aggregator applications, Fig 2 ‘API’).
As per claim 27:
Waldron further discloses the system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: normalizing the transaction data received from the external account system ((¶ [0048] ‘API’ and by the nature of an API they are flexible and meant to apply to different situations and functions such as displaying an output versus interfacing with external financial institutions; Fig 2 ‘API).
As per claim 28:
Waldron further discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the transaction data includes verified account information associated with one or more automated clearing house (ACH) transactions (¶¶ [0051], [0052], [0055] electronic check verification as well as monitoring the transactions associated with a checking account, savings account transactions which are from the customer’s account or accounts would include direct deposits, payroll, bill payments etc that are processed through the ACH network because it is the primary system that institutions use for electronic transactions).As per claims 29 and 35: Claims 29 and 35 are rejected under the rationale of claim 21.As per claims 31-32 and 38-39: Claims 31-32 and 38-39 are rejected under the rationales of claims 24 and 25, respectively.As per claims 33 and 35: Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under the rationales of claims 26 and 28, respectively.As per claims 34 and 40: Claims 34 and 40 are rejected under the rationale of claim 27.
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.
Claim(s) 22-23, 30, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldron US 2011/0295731 in view of Chourasia US 2014/0258063.
As per claim 22:
Waldron fails to explicitly disclose but Chourasia does disclose the system of claim 21, the operations further comprising: estimating the estimated attribute value based at least in part on a confidence value associated with the group satisfying a threshold value (¶¶ [0007]-[0008] disclose categorizing web pages and determining a confidence score that the web page segment belongs in a particular category, the same analysis and confidence scoring could be applied in the transactional data with the same statistical analysis, which would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art because statistical analysis can and is applied to all types of data). In the alternative, Chourasia also discloses categorizing the plurality of received transactions into one or more transaction groups, based at least in part upon transaction name (¶¶ [0033] categorize table data or list data of transactions, [0037]-[0038] categorizing data with a confidence value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Chourasia in Waldron since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Applying statistical analysis to financial data would yield predictable results and improve the accuracy of the system in Waldron. Additionally, both references are in the field of collecting and analyzing financial data.
As per claim 23:
Waldron fails to explicitly disclose but Chourasia does disclose the system of claim 22, the operations further comprising: determining the confidence value based at least in part on a distribution of the transaction amounts over a time period associated with the group (¶¶ [0007]-[0008] disclose categorizing web pages and determining a confidence score that the web page segment belongs in a particular category, the same analysis and confidence scoring could be applied in the transactional data with the same statistical analysis, which would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art because statistical analysis can and is applied to all types of data). In the alternative, Chourasia also discloses categorizing the plurality of received transactions into one or more transaction groups, based at least in part upon transaction name (¶¶ [0033] categorize table data or list data of transactions, [0037]-[0038] categorizing data with a confidence value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Chourasia in Waldron since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Applying statistical analysis to financial data would yield predictable results and improve the accuracy of the system in Waldron. Additionally, both references are in the field of collecting and analyzing financial data.As per claims 30 and 37: Claims 30 and 37 are rejected under the rationale of claims 22 and 23.
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 21, 29, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12067615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims do not have all the limitations of the '615 patent, the '615 patent does contain all the limitations of the current claims as shown below in the table.
18/785581 claim 21
12067615 claim 1
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to
receiving a request for data associated with an account related to an external
account system
receive a request for data associated with an account related to an external
account system
accessing the external account system via an application programming interface
(API) of the external account system, wherein the API is configured to query the external account system for transaction data associated with the account
instantiate a simulated instance of a first-party application associated with the
external account system,
wherein the first-party application is configured to interface with the
external account system via a first application programming interface (API) of the external account system,
wherein the simulated instance is configured to query the external account
system for transaction data associated with the account
receiving the transaction data from the external account system
configured to receive the transaction
data from the external account system
categorizing transactions associated with the transaction data into one or more
transaction groups
categorize transactions associated with the transaction data into one or more
transaction groups based on sources of the transactions
estimating, for a group of the one or more transaction groups and based on
transaction amounts associated with a subset of the transactions related to the group, an estimated attribute value associated with an attribute for the group
estimate, for a group of the one or more transaction groups and based on
transaction amounts associated with transactions related to the group, an estimated attribute value associated with an attribute for the group
determine, based on the estimated attribute value, an expected future value
associated with the attribute
determining, based on the estimated attribute value, an expected future value
associated with the attribute
providing, via an interactive user interface the expected future value
provide, via a second API that is different from the first API, the expected future
value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692