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 .
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 1-20 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 15 is directed to a method. Claims 1 and 8 are directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites:
A server comprising:
a processor device; and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory having an application programming interface that is executable by the processor device to perform an operation to cause the server to perform operations comprising:
identifying a user profile associated with input data, the user profile including historical
data associated with an entity, the identifying including comparing the input data with data included in a plurality of existing user profiles to identify, among the plurality of existing user profiles, the user profile, wherein the plurality of existing user profiles comprises a first subset of user profiles associated with a first account data system and a second subset of user profiles associated with a second account data system;
determining a data system, among the first account data system and the second account data system, with which to execute a requested function based on the identified user profile being included in the first subset of user profiles or the second subset of user profiles, the first account data system having first account data stored thereon and being configured to perform at least one function according to a first process and using the first account data the second account data system having second account data stored thereon that is unintegrated with the first account data, the second account data system being configured to perform at least one function according to a second process and using the second account data the second process being different than the first process;
causing the requested function to be executed using the data system and the first process or the second process; and
providing a result from execution of the requested function to be output for display via integrated labeling of a common user interface.
Claim 2 recites: The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, via the integrated labeling of a common user interface, the input data from the entity, the input data including an indication of the requested function, the integrated labeling being generic with respect to the first account data system and the second account data system, the integrated labeling representing an integration of the first account data system and the second account data system at a future time.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the operation of causing the requested function to be executed includes executing an application programming interface call to the data system for transmitting the input data and the requested function to the data system.
Claim 4 recites: 4. The server of claim 1, wherein the operation of providing the result from the execution of the requested function includes executing an application programming interface call to the data system for receiving the result from the data system.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the server is a first server, and wherein the operation of determining the data system includes receiving the requested function from a second server via the common user interface.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the plurality of existing user profiles indicates known devices and known behaviors, and wherein the operation of determining the data system comprises using the historical data associated with the entity to determine the data system.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the integrated labeling represents a process that is different than and generic with respect to the first process and the second process.
Claim 8 recites: A system comprising:
a first account data system having first account data stored thereon and being configured to perform at least one function according to a first process and using the first account data;
a second account data system having second account data stored thereon that is unintegrated with the first account data, the second account data system being configured to perform at least one function according to a second process and using the second account data;
a server comprising a processor device and a non-transitory computer-readable memory having an application programming interface that is executable by the processor device to cause the server to perform operations comprising:
identifying a user profile associated with input data, the user profile including
historical data associated with an entity, the identifying including comparing the input data with data included in a plurality of existing user profiles to identify, among the plurality of existing user profiles, the user profile, wherein the plurality of existing user profiles comprises a first subset of user profiles associated with a first account data system and a second subset of user profiles associated with a second account data system;
determining a data system, among the first account data system and the second account data system, with which to execute a requested function based on the identified user profile being included in the first subset of user profiles or the second subset of user profiles, the first account data system having first account data stored thereon and being configured to perform at least one function according to a first process and using the first account data the second account data system having second account data stored thereon that is unintegrated with the first account data, the second account data system being configured to perform at least one function according to a second process and using the second account data the second process being different than the first process;
causing the requested function to be executed using the data system and the first process or the second process; and
providing a result from execution of the requested function to be output for display via integrated labeling of a common user interface.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the operations further comprise receiving, via the integrated labeling of a common user interface, the input data from the entity, the input data including an indication of the requested function, the integrated labeling being generic with respect to the first account data system and the second account data system, the integrated labeling representing an integration of the first account data system and the second account data system at a future time.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the operation of causing the requested function to be executed includes executing an application programming interface call to the data system for transmitting the input data and the requested function to the data system.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the operation of providing the result from the execution of the requested function includes executing an application programming interface call to the data system for receiving the result from the data system.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the server is a first server, and wherein the operation of determining the data system includes receiving the requested function from a second server via the common user interface.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the plurality of existing user profiles indicates known devices and known behaviors, and wherein the operation of determining the data system comprises using the historical data associated with the entity to determine the data system.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the integrated labeling represents a process that is different than and generic with respect to the first process and the second process.
Claim 15 recites: A method comprising:
identifying a user profile associated with input data, the user profile including historical data associated with an entity, the identifying including comparing the input data with data included in a plurality of existing user profiles to identify, among the plurality of existing user profiles, the user profile, wherein the plurality of existing user profiles comprises a first subset of user profiles associated with a first account data system and a second subset of user profiles associated with a second account data system;
determining a data system, among the first account data system and the second account data system, with which to execute a requested function based on the identified user profile being included in the first subset of user profiles or the second subset of user profiles, the first account data system having first account data stored thereon and being configured to perform at least one function according to a first process and using the first account data the second account data system having second account data stored thereon that is unintegrated with the first account data, the second account data system being configured to perform at least one function according to a second process and using the second account data the second process being different than the first process;
causing the requested function to be executed using the data system and the first process or the second process; and
providing a result from execution of the requested function to be output for display via integrated labeling of a common user interface.
Claim 16 recites: receiving, via the integrated labeling of a common user interface, the input data from the entity, the input data including an indication of the requested function, the integrated labeling being generic with respect to the first account data system and the second account data system, the integrated labeling representing an integration of the first account data system and the second account data system at a future time.
Claim 17 recites: wherein causing the requested function to be executed includes executing an application programming interface call to the data system for transmitting the input data and the requested function to the data system.
Claim 18 recites: wherein providing the result from the execution of the requested function includes executing an application programming interface call to the data system for receiving the result from the data system.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the plurality of existing user profiles indicates known devices and known behaviors, and wherein determining the data system comprises using the historical data associated with the entity to determine the data system.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the integrated labeling represents a process that is different than and generic with respect to the first process and the second process.
In removing the bolded additional elements, it is noted that the remaining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}(2), such as mental processes which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) because they amount to limitations specifying functions:
“determining among the first account data system and the second account data system,
with which to execute a requested function based on the identified user profile being included in the first subset of user profiles or the second subset of user profiles, the first account data system having first account data stored thereon and being configured to perform at least one function according to a first process and using the first account data the second account data system having second account data stored thereon that is unintegrated with the first account data, the second account data system being configured to perform at least one function according to a second process and using the second account data the second process being different than the first process, causing the requested function to be executed using the data system and the first process or the second process, and providing a result from execution of the requested function to be output for display via integrated labeling of a common user interface”. Functions of identifying, determining are functions that can be performed in the human mind. Displaying of data can be outputted on any desired output medium using pen or paper.
Step 2A, Prong two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps using a processor device, a processor with a memory, first and second data system for receiving, identifying, determining and displaying data merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions.
The computer system and processor with a memory are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of generic computers and hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer system with a processor and memory amounts to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps or functions by a computer processor with a memory hardware for receiving, identifying, determining and displaying data merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of receiving, identifying, determining and displaying data, the breadth of the limitations reasonably perform these functions using a generic processor. These claimed functions are understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more computer with a processor and memory. Consideration of these steps or functions as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of operations. Performance of these steps or functions technologically does not present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving information by computer hardware amounts to receiving and sending information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving, identifying, determining and displaying data, and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer or processor.
Accordingly, the 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. The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components for receiving, identifying, determining and displaying data, thus performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims are recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The reliance of a computer or processor to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“determining among the first account data system and the second account data system, with which to execute a requested function based on the identified user profile being included in the first subset of user profiles or the second subset of user profiles, the first account data system having first account data stored thereon and being configured to perform at least one function according to a first process and using the first account data the second account data system having second account data stored thereon that is unintegrated with the first account data, the second account data system being configured to perform at least one function according to a second process and using the second account data the second process being different than the first process, causing the requested function to be executed using the data system and the first process or the second process, and providing a result from execution of the requested function to be output for display via integrated labeling of a common user interface”, as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 15.
Godwin et al (US 11080712 B2) disclose a method and system for enabling generation and management of a secondary account. The secondary account may be generated in relation to a primary account, such that at least a portion of a transaction conducted using the secondary account may be charged to the primary account. In some embodiments, the secondary account may be associated with a number of protocols to be applied to a transaction. When a transaction is initiated using the secondary account, a service provider may consult an itinerary to dynamically generate a set of protocols which is relevant to the transaction based on a time period during which the transaction is initiated. In some embodiments, portions of the transaction may be split up and transmitted to different authorization entities for authorization.
Thome et al (US 10692059 B1) disclose a method and apparatus for selecting a financial account associated with a payment object based on fund availability. A payment object, such as a proxy card associated with multiple financial accounts, is used by a consumer to make a purchase. In one example, the consumer selects a debit card associated with the proxy card to use for the purchase. A computer system determines that the debit card account has insufficient funds available for the purchase, and determines that an alternate account associated with the proxy card has sufficient funds. The computer system notifies the consumer, via a mobile device of the consumer, that the debit account has insufficient funds, and provides the consumer with the option of using the alternate account. The consumer indicates a desire to use the alternate account, and the computer system processes the payment based on the alternate account.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights