DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/16/2024.
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 were elected for examination by the Applicant on 05/04/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 have been examined.
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are pending.
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 1-11 and 16-20 are directed to a system, a method which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1, for instance , recite in part, A method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a pre-authorization request from a first client application associated with a first account held at a first provider institution, the pre-authorization request requesting that the first account be bound to a second account held at a second provider institution, wherein binding the first account to the second account pre-authorizes a first user of the first account to perform real-time or near real-time pull transfers of resources from the second account into the first account using a transfer service; transmitting, by the computing system, the pre-authorization request to a second client application associated with the second account; receiving, by the computing system, an approval of the pre-authorization request from the second client application associated with the second account; and binding, by the computing system, the first account with the second account based on the approval of the pre-authorization request. The limitations are directed to transferring funds in real-time – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16, for instance , recite in part, A provider computing system associated with a first provider institution, the provider computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive a pre-authorization request from a first client application associated with a first account held by a user at the first provider institution, the pre-authorization request requesting that the first account be bound to a second account held by the user at a second provider institution, wherein binding the first account to the second account pre-authorizes the user to perform real-time or near real-time pull transfers of resources from the second account into the first account using a transfer service; transmit the pre-authorization request to a second client application associated with the second account; and receive an approval of the pre-authorization request from the second client application associated with the second account; and receive a notification that the first account has been bound with the second account based on the approval of the pre-authorization request. The limitations are directed to directed to transferring funds in real-time – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a computing system, client applications, provider institutions, memories to perform receiving, authenticating, translating, and transmitting. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, translating, and transmitting) such that it amounts no more than Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 16, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving, adding and communicating data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception on a generic computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device associated with the receiving a transaction update associated with a transaction request, authenticating the transaction update, translating the transaction update into a format, receiving transaction data associated with the transaction update, transmitting the transaction update to a transaction requestor is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) creating first and second account that is pre-authorized. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving real-time transfer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) accounts held by user. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving a registration request to register first account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) providing selectable option to request transfers. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) accounts held by first user. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) approving transfer unit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) modifying transfer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) transferring request. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system,) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining that a person is deceased. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, graphical user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving request to perform real time transfer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving registration request. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) graphical user interface. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving a conditional approval. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-11, 16-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 8-11, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhye et al. (US 2022/0114581 A1) in view of Boule et al. (US 2021/0397681 A1).
Claim 1. Upadhye teaches: A method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a pre-authorization request from a first client application associated with a first account held at a first provider institution, the pre-authorization request requesting that the first account be bound to a second account held at a second provider institution, wherein binding the first account to the second account pre-authorizes a first user of the first account to perform real-time or near real-time pull transfers of resources from the second account into the first account using a transfer service (Upadhye, see Fig. 1A “Receiver AH System -165 & Sender AHI System 125” & par. [0051] “Once the account numbers are identified, the enhanced processing platform 130 can communicate an account authorization message to the sender AHI system 125, as reflected by flow 7. The account authorization message includes at least the sender account number and the receiver account number. The account authorization message authorizes the sender AHI system 125 to transfer the funds from the sender account associated with the sender account number to the receiver account associated with the receiver account number.”) The authorization message, under BRI, corresponds to pre-authorization request which allows the binding between the sender system and the receiver system;
transmitting, by the computing system, the pre-authorization request to a second client application associated with the second account (see at least par. [0037] “ An AHI application (e.g., sender AHI application 120 and the receiver AHI application 160) may be an application, such as a mobile banking application, managed by an AHI system (e.g., the sender AHI system 125 and the receiver AHI system 165).” & par. [0070] “The account authorization message includes at least the sender account number and the receiver account number and authorizes the sender AHI system 125 to transfer the funds from the sender account associated with the sender account number to the receiver account associated with the receiver account number.”);
and binding, by the computing system, the first account with the second account based on the approval of the pre-authorization request (Upadhye, see par. [0078] “ The virtual wallet application can be managed by an AHI system. When the account is being digitized, the AHI system can connect to the enhanced processing platform 130 to facilitate the set-up. During digitization, the digitization platform of the enhanced processing platform 130 issues a token PAN for the digitized account and passes that information to the account processing platform of the enhanced processing platform 130, which stores the consumer account information and token PANs in the token vault. The token PAN can be provisioned on the consumer's user device (e.g., the sender user device 115 or the receiver user device 155) and made available to the consumer to use for contactless, e-commerce, and P2P payments.”) The cited portion discloses the binding process between the receiver and the sender account.
Upadhye does not teach the following; however, Boule discloses:
receiving, by the computing system, an approval of the pre-authorization request from the second client application associated with the second account (Boule, see at least par. [0264] “In some embodiments, the external input device (e.g., 700) satisfies the set of authorization criteria based on an input (e.g., 750a, 750b, 750c1, 750c2) (e.g., selection of an option in a peripheral management interface), received prior to receiving the first request (e.g., prior to connecting to the external input device), the computer system authorizes (e.g., pre-authorizing) the external input device (e.g., 700) to provide requests to initiate one or more secure transactions that, if authorized from the computer system (e.g., 600), would require separate authorization from the user. In some embodiments, the input authorizing (e.g., pre-authorizing) the external input device to provide requests to initiate one or more secure transactions that, if authorized from the computer system, would require separate authorization from the user is different from an input authorizing the external input device to connect to the computer system while the computer system is in a locked state (e.g., a state in which one or more functions of the computer system, which are available while in an unlocked state, are unavailable).”) The computer system, authorizes or approves, the connection of an external input device associated with a second account;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of receiving an approval pre-authorized request as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device (Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 16. Upadhye teaches: A provider computing system associated with a first provider institution, the provider computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive a pre-authorization request from a first client application associated with a first account held by a user at the first provider institution, the pre-authorization request requesting that the first account be bound to a second account held by the user at a second provider institution, wherein binding the first account to the second account pre-authorizes the user to perform real-time or near real-time pull transfers of resources from the second account into the first account using a transfer service (Upadhye, see Fig. 1A “Receiver AH System -165 & Sender AHI System 125” & par. [0051] “Once the account numbers are identified, the enhanced processing platform 130 can communicate an account authorization message to the sender AHI system 125, as reflected by flow 7. The account authorization message includes at least the sender account number and the receiver account number. The account authorization message authorizes the sender AHI system 125 to transfer the funds from the sender account associated with the sender account number to the receiver account associated with the receiver account number.”) The authorization message, under BRI, corresponds to pre-authorization request which allows the binding between the sender system and the receiver system;
transmit the pre-authorization request to a second client application associated with the second account (see at least par. [0037] “ An AHI application (e.g., sender AHI application 120 and the receiver AHI application 160) may be an application, such as a mobile banking application, managed by an AHI system (e.g., the sender AHI system 125 and the receiver AHI system 165).” & par. [0070] “The account authorization message includes at least the sender account number and the receiver account number and authorizes the sender AHI system 125 to transfer the funds from the sender account associated with the sender account number to the receiver account associated with the receiver account number.”);
and receive a notification that the first account has been bound with the second account based on the approval of the pre-authorization request (Upadhye, see at least par. [0117] “The enhanced processing platform can communicate (508) an account authorization message to the sender AHI system. The account authorization message includes at least the sender account number and the receiver account number. The account authorization message authorizes the sender AHI system to transfer the funds from the sender account associated with the sender account number to the receiver account associated with the receiver account number.”) Once the authorization message has been authorized, the account authorization message is communicated based on the approval.
Upadhye does not disclose the following; however, Boule teaches:
and receive an approval of the pre-authorization request from the second client application associated with the second account(Boule, see at least par. [0264] “In some embodiments, the external input device (e.g., 700) satisfies the set of authorization criteria based on an input (e.g., 750a, 750b, 750c1, 750c2) (e.g., selection of an option in a peripheral management interface), received prior to receiving the first request (e.g., prior to connecting to the external input device), the computer system authorizes (e.g., pre-authorizing) the external input device (e.g., 700) to provide requests to initiate one or more secure transactions that, if authorized from the computer system (e.g., 600), would require separate authorization from the user. In some embodiments, the input authorizing (e.g., pre-authorizing) the external input device to provide requests to initiate one or more secure transactions that, if authorized from the computer system, would require separate authorization from the user is different from an input authorizing the external input device to connect to the computer system while the computer system is in a locked state (e.g., a state in which one or more functions of the computer system, which are available while in an unlocked state, are unavailable).”) The computer system, authorizes or approves, the connection of an external input device associated with a second account;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of receiving an approval pre-authorized request as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device (Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 2. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Upadhye teaches: wherein binding the first account to the second account comprises: creating, by the computing system, an association between the first account and the second account indicating that the first account is pre-authorized to perform the real-time or near real-time pull transfers of resources from the second account into the first account (Upadhye, see at least par. [0058] “As described in FIG. 1A, an AHI system (e.g., the sender AHI system 125 and the receiver AHI system 165) can be a financial institution through which a user has an account. In some cases, an AHI system may be an issuer that provides a payment card to the user. An AHI application (e.g., the receiver AHI application 160) may be an application, such as a mobile banking application, managed by an AHI system (e.g., the receiver AHI system 165). The payment network 140 routes payment information to the appropriate AHI system and may be a real time payment network.”); and storing, by the computing system, the association within an account database (see par. [0060] “During digitization, the digitization platform of the enhanced processing platform 130 issues a token PAN for the digitized account and passes that information to the account processing platform of the enhanced processing platform 130, which stores the consumer account information and token PANs in the token vault.”) .
Claims 3 and 17 are grouped together. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Upadhye teaches: further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, a request to perform a real-time or near real-time pull transfer of resources from the second account into the first account from the first client application; and initiating, by the computing system, the real-time or near real-time pull transfer from the second account into the first account without requesting additional authorization from a second user of the second account based on the first account being bound to the second account (Upadhye, see par. [0065] “ When the sender 110 initiates the P2P payment, the sender user device 115 receives a P2P transfer request from the sender 110. The P2P transfer request includes at least the receiver token PAN. In the illustrative example of FIG. 1B, the P2P transfer request is a request for a sender-initiated (Push) PII secure P2P payment. The third-party application 175 on the sender user device 115 can communicate the P2P transfer request to the third-party system 170, as reflected by flow 4.”).
Claim 4. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Boule teaches: wherein the first account and the second account are both held by the first user (Boule, par. [0254] “ In some embodiments, the computer system (e.g., 600) includes one or more external device communication interfaces (e.g., a communication system for transferring data between the computer system and one or more external devices; a wired communication bus; a wireless communication bus; a data bus).”) The external device which holds an external account is also held by the user who operates the first computing device .
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of receiving an approval pre-authorized request as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 8. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Upadhye teaches: wherein the pre-authorization request includes one or more limitations comprising at least one of an approved transfer limit, an approved transfer amount, or an approval time period within which pull transfers are allowed (Upadhye, see par. [0020] “provides personal contact information, such as a username, a phone number, or an email address. When the sender is ready to initiate a P2P payment, the sender can enter contact information for the recipient, as well as the amount of funds to transfer. The funds are then debited from the sender's account and credited to the recipient's account.”).
Claim 9. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Boule teaches: wherein the approval of the pre-authorization request includes one or more modifications comprising at least one of a modified approved transfer limit, a modified approved transfer amount, or a modified approval time period within which pull transfers are allowed (Boule, see par. [0122] “ In some embodiments, event monitor 171 sends requests to the peripherals interface 118 at predetermined intervals. In response, peripherals interface 118 transmits event information. In other embodiments, peripherals interface 118 transmits event information only when there is a significant event (e.g., receiving an input above a predetermined noise threshold and/or for more than a predetermined duration).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of modifying a transfer amount as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 10. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Upadhye teaches: wherein the pre-authorization request is received without a corresponding resource transfer request for a transfer of resources from the second account into the first account (Upadhye, see at least par. [0054] “Referring to FIG. 1B, an example operating environment can include the sender 110, the sender user device 115, the sender AHI system 125, the enhanced processing platform 130, the payment network 140, the receiver 150, the receiver user device 155, the receiver AHI application 160, and the receiver AHI system 165, as described with respect for FIG. 1A, as well as a third-party system 170 and a third-party application 175.”) A third party system corresponds to resource transfer received without corresponding a request.
Claim 11. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Boule teaches: wherein the pre-authorization request is transmitted to the second client application via a graphical user interface including a pre-authorization guarantee indication indicating that the first provider institution is guaranteeing a predetermined amount of pre-authorized pull transfers from the second account into the first account, and wherein the first provider institution guarantees the predetermined amount of pre-authorized pull transfers without input from the first user regarding guaranteeing the predetermined amount (Boule, see at least par. [0239] “In some embodiments, the first data includes one or more parameters or variables that affect the operation (e.g., an amount of a purchase; an item for purchase. In some embodiments, as a part of performing the second transfer operation, the computer system transmits, to the external receiving device, fourth data that includes information that identifies the third account (e.g., Jane's Account as indicated by 712, Jane's card as indicated by 734) (e.g., an encrypted representation of the account (e.g., a device specific account number) stored on the computer system; a representation of a payment account (e.g., a credit, debit, and/or cash balance account)).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of modifying a transfer amount as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 20. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The provider computing system of claim 16. However, Boule teaches: wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive an indication of conditional approval of the pre-authorization request from the second client application, the indication of conditional approval including one or more modifications comprising at least one of a modified approved transfer limit, a modified approved transfer amount, or a modified approval time period within which pull transfers are allowed; and receive a modification approval of the one or more modifications from the first client application (Boule, see par. [0122] “ In some embodiments, event monitor 171 sends requests to the peripherals interface 118 at predetermined intervals. In response, peripherals interface 118 transmits event information. In other embodiments, peripherals interface 118 transmits event information only when there is a significant event (e.g., receiving an input above a predetermined noise threshold and/or for more than a predetermined duration).”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of modifying a transfer amount as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 5, 6, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhye et al. (US 2022/0114581 A1) in view of Boule et al. (US 2021/0397681 A1) in further view of Tiku et al. (US 2012/0303430 A1).
Claim 5 The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, a registration request to register the first account with the transfer service, the registration request including a user characteristic of the first user of the first account; determining, by the computing system, that the user characteristic matches an existing universal transfer identifier registered with the transfer service; identifying, by the computing system, the second account as being associated with the existing universal transfer identifier; and in response to identifying the second account as being associated with the existing universal transfer identifier, providing, by the computing system, an indication of the second account to the first client application (Tiku, [0173] “r. Furthermore, the user may download a mobile application to the portable electronic device 1102. The user could be directly contacted with the predefined offer by one or more of email, a direct mailing, a communication to a phone, such as a text message, or by referral to a website. Moreover, in various embodiments, the customer account identifier may include a unique identifier associated with the portable electronic device. The unique identifier associated with the portable electronic device may be used to match the transaction to the customer account identifier. The unique identifier may be, for example, a phone number associated with the portable electronic device. A user conducts a transaction at a merchant 1103, and then transaction information is transmitted to a financial institution or a third party 1104. As previously described, the financial institution determines whether the predefined offer is satisfied by the transaction 1105. If it is a qualified transaction, the rebate credit may be applied to the account code associated with the unique identifier 1106.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of matching with a universal identifier as disclosed by Tiku with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye in view of Boule to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 6 and 19 are grouped together. Upadhye in view of Boule in further view of Tiku teaches: The method of claim 5. However, Boule further teaches: wherein the indication of the second account is provided to the first client application via a graphical user interface including a selectable option to request pre-authorization for pull transfers from the second account into the first account, and the pre-authorization request is received in response to the first user selecting the selectable option via the graphical user interface (Boule, see at least par. [0250] “ While the computer system (e.g., 600) is connected to an external input device (e.g., 700) (e.g., an automotive head unit (e.g., a unified hardware interface for a plurality of entertainment and information systems (e.g., sound; navigation) of an automobile (e.g., a stereo head unit; an infotainment system))), the computer system receives (902) a first request (e.g., 752d1, 752d2) (e.g., selection of option or a variable) from the external input device to interact with a first portion of a user interface (e.g., 710, 730) (e.g., a an interface of digital storefront application; a digital wallet application; an e-commerce application; an interface displayed at the external input device (e.g., that is generated, at least in part, based on data from the computer system)) that is associated with a secure transaction (e.g., a transfer of resources (e.g., credits; funds) from a first account (e.g., an account associated with a user of the computer system) to a second account (e.g., an account associated with a merchant)) that, if authorized from the computer system (e.g., 600), would require separate authorization (e.g., 646a, 646b, 638)”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of receiving an approval pre-authorized request as disclosed by Boule with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye in view of Boule in further view Tiku to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 18 The provider computing system of claim 16. However, Tiku teaches: further comprising: wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive a registration request to register the first account with the transfer service, the registration request including a user characteristic of the user; transmit the registration request to a transfer service computing system associated with the transfer service; receiving an indication of the second account from the transfer service computing system based on the user characteristic matching an existing universal transfer identifier registered with the transfer service and cross-correlated with the second account (Tiku, [0173] “r. Furthermore, the user may download a mobile application to the portable electronic device 1102. The user could be directly contacted with the predefined offer by one or more of email, a direct mailing, a communication to a phone, such as a text message, or by referral to a website. Moreover, in various embodiments, the customer account identifier may include a unique identifier associated with the portable electronic device. The unique identifier associated with the portable electronic device may be used to match the transaction to the customer account identifier. The unique identifier may be, for example, a phone number associated with the portable electronic device. A user conducts a transaction at a merchant 1103, and then transaction information is transmitted to a financial institution or a third party 1104. As previously described, the financial institution determines whether the predefined offer is satisfied by the transaction 1105. If it is a qualified transaction, the rebate credit may be applied to the account code associated with the unique identifier 1106.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of matching with a universal identifier as disclosed by Tiku with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye in view of Boule to better initiate a secure operation such as adding an external or establishing connection with an additional device. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhye et al. (US 2022/0114581 A1) in view of Boule et al. (US 2021/0397681 A1) in further view of Bowers et al. (US 12,182,780).
Claim 7. Upadhye in view of Boule teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Bowers teaches: wherein the first account is held by a provider of goods and/or services, the second account is held by a customer purchasing the goods and/or services from the provider, and the pre-authorization request is associated with a recurring payment (Bowers, see at least claim 18 “The system of claim 1, wherein the financial data includes at least one of a recurring payment, a periodic deposit, or a pending deposit.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the effective time of filing to combine the features of a recurring payment as disclosed by Bowers with the invention of binding the first and second account as taught by Upadhye in view of Boule to better performing P2P transfer for a recurring payment. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights