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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “A system” which comprises “a memory” and “at least one processor”. It is not clear whether the system comprises along with the memory and at least one processor, a general ledger that receives a request transaction, transaction data which is recording in the general ledger, or whether the claimed general ledger is peripheral to the system. It is also not clear whether the system also includes a staging element that receives the requested transaction, reviews the transaction data recorded in the general ledger and validates the requested transaction. It is not clear whether the system comprises an institution account and/or a clearing house.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
8. In the instant case, claim 1 and 10 are directed to a system and claim 17 is directed to a method
9. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “making payment on a credit card account with another credit card account” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity based upon concepts relating to managing transactions between people or relating to sales activity in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
10. Claim 1 recites “receive a requested transaction from a first account, wherein the first account is a credit account; receive transaction data associated with the first account and the requested transaction; and record the transaction data …; … receive the requested transaction …; review the transaction data …; and validate the requested transaction based on the transaction data; …receive the requested transaction …; and send funds … based on the requested transaction; and … receive the funds from the institution account; receive the transaction data; and transfer the funds received from the institution account to a second account; … verify the funds received by the clearing house from the institution account satisfies an amount determined by the requested transaction; reduce a balance of the first account …; raise a balance of the institution account …; and raise a balance of the second account by the funds received from the clearing house. ”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “a memory” and “at least one processor” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implement the acts of making payment on a credit card account with another credit card account.
12. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of implementing a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g. memory and processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
13. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
14. Claims 2-9 do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Claim 10 recites a memory and at least a processor and has similar issues to claim 1.
16. Claims 11-16 do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Claim 17 provides the method of making payment on a credit card account with another credit card account” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity based upon concepts relating to managing transactions between people or relating to sales activity. Claim 17 has the same issue as claim 1, that being not having an additional element or combination of elements that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Claims 18-20 also do not providing additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Pollin et al (US 11,620,621) in view of Nosek (US 7,191,151).
22. Regarding claim 1, Pollin discloses,
a system (Fig. 1)(item# 700) comprising:
a memory (Fig. 1)(item# 705)(item# 710) storing instructions; and
at least one processor (Fig. 1)(item# 704) configured to execute the stored instructions to control:
a general ledger (Fig. 2)(item# 202), the general ledger configured to:
receive a requested transaction from a first account, wherein the first account is a credit account;
receive transaction data associated with the first account and the requested transaction; and record the transaction data in the general ledger; [see column 5, lines 57-62, wherein a hosted system on a secure server 202 provides Financial Account Registration functions and Token Retrieval functions that can be accessed by merchants and others operating websites, for example using merchant server 204, to process payment transactions.]
a staging element (Item# 204) configured to:
receive the requested transaction from the general ledger;
review the transaction data recorded in the general ledger; [column 15, lines 8-10] and
validate the requested transaction based on the transaction data; [see Fig. 4g, item# 412, column 14, lines 20-34];
an institution account configured to:
receive the requested transaction from the staging element (Item# 204); [see column 8, line 52 to column 9, line 24; and column 11, line 53 to column 12, line 5] and
23. Pollin fails to disclose, But Nosek teaches,
send funds from the institution account to a clearing house based on the requested transaction; [see column 2, lines 36-50; column 4, lines 42-45] and
the clearing house configured to:
receive the funds from the institution account;[see ACH debit, (item# 150), column 4 , lines 50-63]
receive the transaction data;[see ACH entries, column 4 , lines 50-63] and
transfer the funds received from the institution account to a second account; [see column 4, lines 35-63]
wherein the processor is further configured to:
verify the funds received by the clearing house from the institution account satisfies an amount determined by the requested transaction; [see column 5, lines 41-53, for credit source; and at least column 6, lines 25-49, for funds from a bank account]
reduce a balance of the first account by the funds transferred from the institution account to the clearing house; [see column 5, lines 41-57, funds are charged against the user’s credit source or accepting a ACH debit (i.e., withdrawal or debits), see column 6, lines 25-49; see also column 7, lines 23-41, column 8, lines 42-48]
raise a balance of the institution account by the funds transferred from the institution account to the clearing house;(i.e., deposits) [see also column 8, lines 42-48] and
raise a balance of the second account by the funds received from the clearing house. [column 2, lines 53-60, suggests multiple accounts
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Pollin to have understood the notoriously old and and well known functions of an automated clearing house system as disclosed in Nosek and have implemented such functions in Pollin. The motivation would be to obtain and using account information to process and make financial payments especially as commonly used within the banking system.[see Pollin, column 1, lines 18-20; and column 8, lines 2-9]
24. Regarding Claim 2, Nosek discloses wherein the second account is a credit account [see Nosek, column 4, lines 4-22]
25. Regarding Claim 3, Pollin discloses wherein the staging element is further configured to request verification data from a user of the first account [see Pollin, column 15, lines 8-10]
26. Regarding Claim 4, Pollin discloses wherein the general ledger is further configured to record the verification data [see Pollin, column 15, lines 8-10]
Claim 8 discloses wherein the first account and the second account are managed by the same user[see Nosek, column 4, lines 4-22]
Claim 9 discloses the first account and the second account are managed by different users. [see Nosek, column 4, lines 4-22]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to disclose, alone or in combination, as in claim 10, “…analyze, through generative artificial intelligence, a balance limit for an account, an available balance for the account, and user information corresponding to the user associated with the account;
generate a prompt, through generative artificial intelligence, for display on the interface based on the balance limit, the available balance, and the user information, the prompt providing options for managing the account, wherein the options are specific to the user; and present the prompt to the interface.”
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walker (US 2012/0116972)
Thomas et al (US 10,387,879)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692