DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/5/2026 with respect to with respect to Double Patenting have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that the amendments included in this response render the double patenting rejections moot and respectfully request the double patenting rejections be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are still anticipated by claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,449,346; claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,319,029; claims 7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,030,682; claims 1, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,798,072; claims 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,492; and claims 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,028 as shown in the Double Patenting rejection below. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/5/2026 with respect to with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 of the claims has been withdrawn as the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments re: particular solution to a problem in the technical field, see pp. 19 -20 of Applicant’s remarks, and further notes that 1) the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and 2) the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. The claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement (i.e., the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification). Further, the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments re: that the claims, when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(a)-(h). The inventive concept is readily apparent when the claims are considered in combination, as they provide clear improvements to a computer and to the technical field of financial APIs and financial information retrieval, see p. 22 of Applicant’s remarks
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/5/2026 with respect to with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims has been withdrawn as the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments re: the combination Chourasia, Robinson, and Newton.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,449,346 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features claimed in claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,449,346 B1, claims, one or more computer readable storage devices configured to store a plurality of computer executable instructions; and one or more hardware computer processors in communication with the one or more computer readable storage devices and configured to execute the plurality of computer executable instructions in order to cause the computer system to: execute an Application Programming Interface (API) of the computer system, the API of the computer system configured to receive and provide responses to requests from a developer computing device according to a normalized format of the API of the computer system; receive, via the API and according to the normalized format, a request from the developer computing device for transaction data associated with a user, the request including at least: a username associated with the user, a password associated with the user, and an external institution identifier; determine, based on the external institution identifier, an external institution associated with the request; in response to the request: access an institution interface module of the computer system, wherein: the institution interface module is uniquely configured to enable communication with an external computing device of the external institution via a non-public API of the external computing device of the external institution, and the institution interface module is generated based on an analysis of interactions between an actual instance of a mobile device application associated with the external institution and the external computing device of the external institution; and instantiate a virtualized instance of the mobile device application associated with the external institution, wherein: the virtualized instance of the mobile device application is configured to communicate with the institution interface module of the computer system so as to interface with the external computing device of the external institution via the non-public API of the external computing device of the external institution, the non-public API of the external computing device of the external institution is configured to interact with the mobile device application, and the virtualized instance of the mobile device application is generated based on an analysis of the mobile device application; authenticate, via the institution interface module, the virtualized instance of the mobile device application with the external computing device of the external institution based on at least one of: an mobile device identifier code, an mobile device authentication token, or a mobile device Media Access Control (MAC) address; request, by the virtualized instance of the mobile device application and via the non-public API of the external computing device of the external institution, the transaction data associated with the user from the external computing device of the external institution by: providing the username associated with the user and the password associated with the user to the external computing device of the external institution; receiving a request for second factor authentication information from the external computing device of the external institution; requesting, via the API of the computer system, the second factor authentication information from the developer computing device; receiving, via the API of the computer system, the second factor authentication information from the developer computing device; providing the second factor authentication information to the external computing device of the external institution; receiving, from the external computing device of the external institution, a response indicating acceptance of the second factor authentication information; requesting the transaction information from the external computing device of the external institution; and receiving the transaction data associated with the user from the external computing device of the external institution; enhance the transaction data associated with the user to generate enhanced transaction data by: augmenting, based on an analysis of the transaction data, a plurality of transaction data items of the transaction data with respective category labels; augmenting, based on a further analysis of the transaction data, the plurality of transaction data items of the transaction data with respective geolocation information; and standardizing a format of the transaction data such that the enhanced transaction data may be provided by the computer system in the normalized format; provide, via the API of the computer system and in the normalized format, the enhanced transaction data to the developer computing device; and persist, in the one or more computer readable storage devices of the computer system, the virtualized instance of the mobile device application such that future requests for transaction data associated with the user may be obtained via the virtualized instance of the mobile device application, thus, would anticipate the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of the Instant Application. Therefore, because the instant application is not patentably distinct from the prior patent, and in fact would be anticipated by the prior patent, the claims must be rejected on non-statutory double patenting grounds.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,319,029 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features claimed in claim(s) 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,319,029 B1, claims, one or more computer-readable storage devices configured to store a plurality of computer executable instructions; and one or more hardware computer processors in communication with the one or more computer-readable storage devices and configured to execute the plurality of computer executable instructions in order to cause the computer system to: receive, from a first computing device, a request for data associated with a user, the request including authentication credentials associated with the user; identify an institution associated with the request; create a simulated instance of a software application, the software application being a first party application of the institution and specifically configured to interface via an API of the institution with computing devices associated with the institution, wherein: the simulated instance of the software application is also configured to interface, via the API of the institution, with computing devices associated with the institution, and the simulated instance of the software application is configured to appear to the computing devices of the institution to be the software application executing on a physical computing device of the user; request, by the simulated instance of the software application and via the API, data associated with the user from a second computing device of the institution; receive the data associated with the user from the second computing device; enhance the data associated with the user to generate enhanced data; and provide, to another computing device, the enhanced data, thus, would anticipate the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of the Instant Application. Therefore, because the instant application is not patentably distinct from the prior patent, and in fact would be anticipated by the prior patent, the claims must be rejected on non-statutory double patenting grounds.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,030,682 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features claimed in claim(s) 7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,030,682 B1, claims, one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute a plurality of computer executable instructions to cause the computer system to: receive, from a first computing device, a request for data associated with a user, the request including authentication credentials associated with the user; initiate a simulated instance of a software application, the software application being associated with an institution associated with the request, the software application specifically configured to interface via an API of the institution with computing devices associated with the institution, wherein: the simulated instance of the software application is also configured to interface, via the API of the institution, with computing devices associated with the institution, and the simulated instance of the software application is configured to appear to the computing devices of the institution to be the software application executing on a physical computing device of the user; request, by the simulated instance of the software application and via the API, data associated with the user from a second computing device of the institution; and receive the data associated with the user from the second computing device, wherein the computer system is configured to initiate simulated instances of any of a plurality of software applications, the simulated instances of the plurality of software applications being associated with different institutions or users, and the simulated instances of the plurality of software applications being configured to interface, via APIs of the different institutions, with computing devices associated with the different institutions [Claim 7 and 20] wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the plurality of computer executable instructions to further cause the computer system to: standardize a format of the data such that the data may be provided in a standardized format, thus, would anticipate the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of the Instant Application. Therefore, because the instant application is not patentably distinct from the prior patent, and in fact would be anticipated by the prior patent, the claims must be rejected on non-statutory double patenting grounds.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,798,072 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features claimed in claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,798,072 B1, claims, one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute a plurality of computer executable instructions, the computer system configured to communicate with a plurality of computing devices associated with a plurality of institutions via a respective plurality of different application programming interfaces (“APIs”) associated with the plurality of institutions and provide data obtained from the plurality of computing devices in a normalized format and via a normalized API of the computer system, wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the plurality of computer executable instructions to cause the computer system to: receive, from a first computing device, a request for data associated with a user, the request including authentication credentials associated with the user; identify an institution, of the plurality of institutions, associated with the request; request, via a first API, of the plurality of different APIs, associated with the institution and using the authentication credentials, data associated with the user from a second computing device associated with the institution, wherein the first API is a proprietary API of the institution; receive first data associated with the user from the second computing device; receive, via a second API, of the plurality of different APIs, associated with a second institution, second data associated with the user from a third computing device associated with the second institution, wherein the second API is a proprietary API of the second institution, wherein the first data is represented with different category labels than the second data; enhance the first data associated with the user to generate enhanced data, wherein enhancing the first data comprises: augmenting, based on an analysis of the first data, a plurality of data items of the first data with supplemental category labels such that the first data is represented by the supplemental category labels in a substantially similar form as the second data; and augmenting, based on a further analysis of the first data, the plurality of data items of the first data with respective geolocation information; normalize a format of the enhanced first data such that the format of the enhanced first data and a format of the second data correspond to a normalized format; and in response to the request for data associated with the user, provide, to another computing device and via the normalized API, the enhanced first data and the second data in the normalized format, wherein the normalized API is configured, based on a determination of one or more operations associated with the institution or the second institution, to: provide an operation for the institution; and prevent the operation for the second institution, thus, would anticipate the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of the Instant Application. Therefore, because the instant application is not patentably distinct from the prior patent, and in fact would be anticipated by the prior patent, the claims must be rejected on non-statutory double patenting grounds.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,922,492 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features claimed in claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,922,492 B1, claims, receiving, by a computing platform from a computing device and via a normalized application programming interface (API), a request for user data associated with an account of a first user held by a first financial institution, wherein the first financial institution provides a first-party user application that enables users of the first financial institution to access data stored by the first financial institution via a first API specific to the first financial institution; generating, by an application proxy system implemented on the computing platform, a first application proxy instance of the first-party user application by generating a digital image of an instance of the first-party user application of the first financial institution, wherein the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application is specific to the first user; negotiating, by the application proxy system, registration of the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application, wherein negotiating registration of the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application includes providing credentials of the first user to the first financial institution; storing, by the application proxy system, the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application in a memory, wherein the memory includes a plurality of application proxy instances associated with a plurality of users of the first financial institution; initiating, by the application proxy system, using the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application and via the first API specific to the first financial institution, a communication session with the first financial institution to retrieve the requested user data; retrieving, by the computing platform and via the communication session, the requested user data; formatting, by the computing platform, the retrieved user data to a standardized format of the normalized API; and transmitting, by the computing platform, to the computing device and in response to the request for user data, the retrieved user data in the standardized format, thus, would anticipate the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of the Instant Application. Therefore, because the instant application is not patentably distinct from the prior patent, and in fact would be anticipated by the prior patent, the claims must be rejected on non-statutory double patenting grounds.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,148,028 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features claimed in claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,148,028 B1, claims receiving, by a computing platform from a computing device and via a normalized application programming interface (API), a request for user data associated with an account of a first user held by a first financial institution, wherein the first financial institution provides a first-party user application that enables users of the first financial institution to access data stored by the first financial institution via a first API specific to the first financial institution; retrieving, by an application proxy system implemented on the computing platform and from a plurality of stored application proxy instances associated with a plurality of users of the first financial institution, a first application proxy instance of the first-party user application, wherein the first application proxy instance includes a digital image of an instance of the first-party user application of the first financial institution, wherein the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application is specific to the first user, and wherein the first application proxy instance is registered with the first financial institution by providing credentials of the first user to the first financial institution; initiating, by the application proxy system, using the first application proxy instance of the first-party user application and via the first API specific to the first financial institution, a communication session with the first financial institution to retrieve the requested user data; retrieving, by the computing platform and via the communication session, the requested user data; formatting, by the computing platform, the retrieved user data to a standardized format of the normalized API; and transmitting, by the computing platform, to the computing device and in response to the request for user data, the retrieved user data in the standardized format, thus, would anticipate the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of the Instant Application. Therefore, because the instant application is not patentably distinct from the prior patent, and in fact would be anticipated by the prior patent, the claims must be rejected on non-statutory double patenting grounds.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626