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 amendment filed January 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The new rejections in response to applicant’s amendment answer the arguments that the new amendments overcome the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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 of this title, 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, 3-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov et al. (USPG 2013/0060,708 A1) in view of Panda (USPG 2018) and Grigg et al. (USPG 2018/0040064 A1).
As per claim 1 Oskolkov teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating by a computing system, a message (see at least Oskolkov abstract, paragraph 8 “The TMC can generate a fund transfer message ( e.g., fund transfer notification message) comprising the communication address of the intended recipient to which the fund transfer message is to be sent, a message specifying the amount of funds being transferred to the intended recipient and how the funds can be obtained by the intended recipient,”)
receiving, by the computing system, an indication (see at least Oskolkov paragraph 10 “In accordance with various aspects, the TMC, via the online page, can request that the intended recipient, using the intended recipient's communication device, provide authentication or validation information to the TMC to confirm or validate who the intended recipient is and that the intended recipient is the entity that is authorized to receive the transferred funds. For example, the TMC, via the online page, can request the intended recipient to insert the phone number or email address associated with the intended recipient in an address field on the online page and/or can request that the intended recipient select a get-code control on the online page. The address (e.g., phone number or email address) in the address field and/or a request for a code can be transmitted to the TMC. The TMC can compare the received address to the address associated with the fund transfer request to determine whether they match, wherein a match indicates that at least a first level of authentication or validation is satisfied.”)
While Oskolkov teaches processing transactions between a sender and recipient it does not teach re-contacting the sender to validate a change to the transaction data. But Panda teaches contacting the sender to confirm a change to data to deal with improper data in a field. (see at least Panda Abstract “A form document submission system processes a form document with one or more fields to be filled out, and includes a server device to register the form document, a form document identifier associated with the form document, and a form data rule applicable to the form document, so as to be associated with a user;
a user accessible device to receive the form document and the form document identifier from the server device, fill out each field with a corresponding input, and send the filled out form, from the user accessible device to the server device;
wherein the server device validates the filled out form document for each field, based upon the form data rule, and if an error is found in any of the fields, highlights the field with the error, and sends the highlighted form to the user accessible device, for changes to the corresponding input to comply with the form data rule,”) Therefore contacting the sender to approve a change to transaction details including the data that is editable and causing the delay is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success. While Oskolkov and Panda are not explicit about generating a score regarding the transaction request being completed within a time threshold it was taught in the art by Grigg (see at least Grigg paragraph 52 “(0052] In some embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein enable generation of action scores and action probabilities based on communications data, also referred to herein as transactions, that include payment history across a plurality of suppliers, performance of a user's customers, sales invoices, timeliness of payments received by the user, performance indicators, and other user information. The action score generated may be used to determine timeliness of interactions of a user based on communications data from the user, communications data from other similar users, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the methods and systems described herein may generate scores and indexes of timeliness of actions, performance values, and performance indicators for individuals, entities, markets, competing businesses, and the like.”) Therefore predicting such performance details is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
As per claim 3 Oskolkov teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the transaction request comprises transaction data; and the indication comprises a validation of part of the transaction data. (see at least Oskolkov abstract, paragraph 10 “The TMC can compare the received address to the address associated with the fund transfer request to determine whether they match, wherein a match indicates that at least a first level of authentication or validation is satisfied.” The recipient address was part of the transaction data received by the recipient device its being used to validate the transaction.)
As per claims 4 and 14 while Oskolkov teaches processing transactions between a sender and recipient it does not teach re-contacting the sender to validate a change to the transaction data. But Panda teaches contacting the sender to confirm a change to the transaction data to deal with improper data in a data field. (see at least Panda Abstract) Therefore contacting the sender to approve a change to transaction details is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
As per claims 5 and 15 while Oskolkov teaches processing transactions between a sender and recipient it does not teach re-contacting the sender to validate a change to the transaction data. But Panda teaches contacting sender by sending all of the data indicating that no errors were found in the form. (see at least Panda Abstract “if no error is found in any of the fields, sending the highlighted form to the user accessible device, as confirmation that no error is found.”) Therefore contacting the sender to approve a change to transaction details is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
As per claim 6 a financial incentive for approving a transaction is that transaction being funded so the originator does not have to find some other way to pay for the transaction. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
As per claims 8 and 16 financial incentive for approving a transaction is that transaction being funded so the recipient receives the funds. The time incentive is receiving the funds then or after a time period that starts when the transaction is approved. Calabrese teaches if it is important to record the terms of a transaction being accepted it is important to contact the counter party in the transaction to approve that change. In Calabrese it is the tip which they are confirming by contacting the party providing the funds. (see at least Calabrese abstract and column 5 lines 9-51) Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of confirming transactions to receive an approval from any party agreeing to any terms. Since it is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
As per claim 10 Oskolkov teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method further includes transmitting a data message to the recipient financial institution including the transaction data, wherein transmitting the data message to the recipient financial institution includes first transmitting the data message to the intermediary financial institution, the intermediary financial institution then transmitting the data message or modifying and then transmitting the data message to the recipient device or to the recipient financial institution. (see at least Oskolkov abstract and paragraph 11 The TMC is functioning as the intermediary financial institution. An obvious modification of the data message is the recipient providing their account data for the funds to be sent to it.)
As per claim 11 Oskolkov teaches:
A system for processing transactions, the system comprising a computing system, the computing system configured to:
generate a message (see at least Oskolkov abstract, paragraphs 8, 11, and 57 “the sender can use the sender's communication device to transmit the fund transfer request message to the TMC and/or the communication device of the intended recipient. In an aspect, the TMC can analyze the content of the message to identify the name and/or MIS account of the sender, the name of the intended recipient, the address associated with the intended recipient, the amount of funds to be transferred, the account of the sender from which the funds are to be withdrawn, whether there is a personal message from the sender to the intended recipient in the request message, and/or other information” The name of the sender is originator identification information. “Transaction recipient account information” is the address associated with the intended recipient because in paragraphs 11 and 57 not only can the recipient direct the received funds to be deposited in an account of their choosing they can also directly use them to “pay bills online ( e.g., pay utility bill, credit card bill, etc.).” In addition the funds can be withdrawn from the first user the sender’s account and held in a “temporary service account and associate that temporary service account with the unregistered second user” the intended recipient.)
receive an indication (see at least Oskolkov paragraph 10 “In accordance with various aspects, the TMC, via the online page, can request that the intended recipient, using the intended recipient's communication device, provide authentication or validation information to the TMC to confirm or validate who the intended recipient is and that the intended recipient is the entity that is authorized to receive the transferred funds. For example, the TMC, via the online page, can request the intended recipient to insert the phone number or email address associated with the intended recipient in an address field on the online page and/or can request that the intended recipient select a get-code control on the online page. The address (e.g., phone number or email address) in the address field and/or a request for a code can be transmitted to the TMC. The TMC can compare the received address to the address associated with the fund transfer request to determine whether they match, wherein a match indicates that at least a first level of authentication or validation is satisfied.”)
While Oskolkov teaches processing transactions between a sender and recipient it does not teach re-contacting the sender to validate a change to the transaction data. But Panda teaches contacting the sender to confirm a change to data to deal with improper data in a field. (see at least Panda Abstract “A form document submission system processes a form document with one or more fields to be filled out, and includes a server device to register the form document, a form document identifier associated with the form document, and a form data rule applicable to the form document, so as to be associated with a user;
a user accessible device to receive the form document and the form document identifier from the server device, fill out each field with a corresponding input, and send the filled out form, from the user accessible device to the server device;
wherein the server device validates the filled out form document for each field, based upon the form data rule, and if an error is found in any of the fields, highlights the field with the error, and sends the highlighted form to the user accessible device, for changes to the corresponding input to comply with the form data rule,”) Therefore contacting the sender to approve a change to transaction details including the data that is editable and causing the delay is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success. While Oskolkov and Panda are not explicit about generating a score regarding the transaction request being completed within a time threshold it was taught in the art by Grigg (see at least Grigg paragraph 52 “(0052] In some embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein enable generation of action scores and action probabilities based on communications data, also referred to herein as transactions, that include payment history across a plurality of suppliers, performance of a user's customers, sales invoices, timeliness of payments received by the user, performance indicators, and other user information. The action score generated may be used to determine timeliness of interactions of a user based on communications data from the user, communications data from other similar users, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the methods and systems described herein may generate scores and indexes of timeliness of actions, performance values, and performance indicators for individuals, entities, markets, competing businesses, and the like.”) Therefore predicting such performance details is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
As per claim 13 Oskolkov teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the indication from the recipient includes a validation of part of the transaction request. (see at least Oskolkov abstract, paragraph 10 “The TMC can compare the received address to the address associated with the fund transfer request to determine whether they match, wherein a match indicates that at least a first level of authentication or validation is satisfied.” The recipient address was part of the transaction data received by the recipient device its being used to validate the transaction.)
As per claim 19 Oskolkov teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied therein that, when executed by a processing circuit of a computing system, causes processing circuit to perform operations, the operations comprising:
generate a message (see at least Oskolkov abstract, paragraphs 8, 11, and 57 “the sender can use the sender's communication device to transmit the fund transfer request message to the TMC and/or the communication device of the intended recipient. In an aspect, the TMC can analyze the content of the message to identify the name and/or MIS account of the sender, the name of the intended recipient, the address associated with the intended recipient, the amount of funds to be transferred, the account of the sender from which the funds are to be withdrawn, whether there is a personal message from the sender to the intended recipient in the request message, and/or other information” The name of the sender is originator identification information. “Transaction recipient account information” is the address associated with the intended recipient because in paragraphs 11 and 57 not only can the recipient direct the received funds to be deposited in an account of their choosing they can also directly use them to “pay bills online ( e.g., pay utility bill, credit card bill, etc.).” In addition the funds can be withdrawn from the first user the sender’s account and held in a “temporary service account and associate that temporary service account with the unregistered second user” the intended recipient.)
receive an indication (see at least Oskolkov paragraph 10 “In accordance with various aspects, the TMC, via the online page, can request that the intended recipient, using the intended recipient's communication device, provide authentication or validation information to the TMC to confirm or validate who the intended recipient is and that the intended recipient is the entity that is authorized to receive the transferred funds. For example, the TMC, via the online page, can request the intended recipient to insert the phone number or email address associated with the intended recipient in an address field on the online page and/or can request that the intended recipient select a get-code control on the online page. The address (e.g., phone number or email address) in the address field and/or a request for a code can be transmitted to the TMC. The TMC can compare the received address to the address associated with the fund transfer request to determine whether they match, wherein a match indicates that at least a first level of authentication or validation is satisfied.”)
While Oskolkov teaches processing transactions between a sender and recipient it does not teach re-contacting the sender to validate a change to the transaction data. But Panda teaches contacting the sender to confirm a change to data to deal with improper data in a field. (see at least Panda Abstract “A form document submission system processes a form document with one or more fields to be filled out, and includes a server device to register the form document, a form document identifier associated with the form document, and a form data rule applicable to the form document, so as to be associated with a user;
a user accessible device to receive the form document and the form document identifier from the server device, fill out each field with a corresponding input, and send the filled out form, from the user accessible device to the server device;
wherein the server device validates the filled out form document for each field, based upon the form data rule, and if an error is found in any of the fields, highlights the field with the error, and sends the highlighted form to the user accessible device, for changes to the corresponding input to comply with the form data rule,”) Therefore contacting the sender to approve a change to transaction details including the data that is editable and causing the delay is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success. While Oskolkov and Panda are not explicit about generating a score regarding the transaction request being completed within a time threshold it was taught in the art by Grigg (see at least Grigg paragraph 52 “(0052] In some embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein enable generation of action scores and action probabilities based on communications data, also referred to herein as transactions, that include payment history across a plurality of suppliers, performance of a user's customers, sales invoices, timeliness of payments received by the user, performance indicators, and other user information. The action score generated may be used to determine timeliness of interactions of a user based on communications data from the user, communications data from other similar users, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the methods and systems described herein may generate scores and indexes of timeliness of actions, performance values, and performance indicators for individuals, entities, markets, competing businesses, and the like.”) Therefore predicting such performance details is solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
As per claim 20 Oskolkov teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise validating the transaction request based on authenticating an identify of a recipient of the transaction request. (see at least Oskolkov abstract, paragraph 10 “(0010] In accordance with various aspects, the TMC, via the online page, can request that the intended recipient, using the intended recipient's communication device, provide authentication or validation information to the TMC to confirm or validate who the intended recipient is and that the intended recipient is the entity that is authorized to receive the transferred funds. For example, the TMC, via the online page, can request the intended recipient to insert the phone number or email address associated with the intended recipient in an address field on the online page and/or can request that the intended recipient select a get-code control on the online page. The address ( e.g., phone number or email address) in the address field and/or a request for a code can be transmitted to the TMC. The TMC can compare the received address to the address associated with the fund transfer request to determine whether they match, wherein a match indicates that at least a first level of authentication or validation is satisfied. In another aspect, the TMC can transmit a unique code ( e.g., unique code comprising alphanumeric or other characters) to the intended recipient at the address associated with the intended recipient and/or associated communication device (e.g., the phone number or email address of the intended recipient). The TMC can request that the intended recipient use the intended recipient's communication device to enter the unique code in a code field on the online page and press, select or manipulate an enter control on the online page to transmit the unique code for verification.” )
Claims 7, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov et al. (USPG 2013/0060,708 A1) in view of Panda (USPG 2018/0032,286 A1), Grigg et al. (USPG 2018/0040064 A1) and Chirehdast (U.S. 8,504,470).
As per claim 7-9, 17, and 18 while Oskolkov does not teach having the originator make at least one edit to the transaction request Chirehdast does teach a customer interacting with someone through a mobile device that can include a counter-offer being made which is what an edit to a transaction request would be which could delay a transaction until the counter offer is accepted which could remedy the delay. (see at least Chirehdast column 6 lines 39-column 7 line 4) Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to solve the problem of making changes in what would be accepted by making those changes as a counter-offer presented to the other party to be accepted or declined since it would be solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov et al. (USPG 2013/0060,708 A1) in view of Panda (USPG 2018), Grigg et al. (USPG 2018/0040064 A1) and Schuebert (USPG 2007/0282,735 A1).
As per claim 2 while Oskolkov and Grigg are not explicit about the indication is transmitted without first being transmitted to an intermediary entity Schuebert teaches verifying that all of the data fields required for a transaction contain valid values before proceeding. (see at least Schuebert paragraph 83 “(0083] However, if the user requests to submit (or resubmit), or approve the payoff proposal, the system proceeds to Step 271 where the system verifies that all of the required fields include valid entries. If any of the fields does not include a valid entry, the system advances to Step 272 where it prompts the user to re-enter information as needed. The system then repeats Steps 267, 269, and 271 until all of the required fields include valid entries ( or until the user saves the entry without resubmitting or approving it). When the system determines that all of the required fields include valid entries, the system proceeds”) Since that is analysis determining whether a transaction is ready to proceed it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of data entry since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov et al. (USPG 2013/0060,708 A1) in view of Panda (USPG 2018), Grigg et al. (USPG 2018/0040064 A1), and Rohlfing et al. (USPG 2017/0323,294 A1).
As per claim 12 while Oskolkov is not explicit about determining whether an originator of the transaction request has sufficient funds or credit to fulfill the transaction request it was taught in the art of transactions as shown by Rohlfing (see at least Rohlfing paragraph 28 “and may verify that the transaction account has sufficient balance to cover the transaction amount as stored in the corresponding data element included in the transaction message.”) Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 from the examiner should be directed to Scott S. Trotter, whose telephone number is 571-272-7366. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, M-F.
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 on 571-272-3955.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-7366 (Draft Communications)
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights