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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the earlier filing dates of provisional applications 63/600,946, 63/600,927, and 63/600,930 all filed 20 November 2023. The priority claim complies with all applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the effective filing date of the claims is 20 November 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Third Party Submission filed on 13 February 2026 complies with all applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
No issues have been found with the drawings filed 19 November 2024
Specification
No issues have been found with the specification filed 19 November 2024
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 9—“the systems” appears to be referring to “computer systems” of line 5. In order to overcome this objection, line 9 may be amended to state --the computer systems-- in order to correspond to “computer systems” of line 5.
Regarding claim 1, line 16—“the external communication request” appears to be referring to “external communication requests” of line 15. In order to overcome this objection, line 16 may be amended to state --the external communication requests-- in order to correspond to “external communication requests” of line 15.
Regarding claim 2, line 1—“the distributed operation is” appears to be referring to “secure distributed operations” in line 10 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 1 may be amended to state --the secure distributed operations are-- in order to correspond to “secure distributed operations” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, line 2—“the distributed operation” appears to be referring to “secure distributed operations” in line 10 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 2 may be amended to state --the secure distributed operations-- in order to correspond to “secure distributed operations” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, line 2—“the source” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. In order to overcome this objection, line 2 may be amended to state --a source--.
Regarding claim 6, line 3—“the external communication request” appears to be referring to “external communication requests” of line 15 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 3 may be amended to state --the external communication requests-- in order to correspond to “external communication requests” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, line 3—“external communication requests” appears to be referring to “external communication requests” of line 15 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 3 may be amended to state --the external communication requests-- in order to correspond to “external communication requests” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, line 2—“member systems” appears to be referring to “respective members” of line 18 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 2 may be amended to state --the respective members-- in order to correspond to “respective members” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, line 1—“member systems” appears to be referring to “respective members” of line 18 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 1 may be amended to state --the respective members-- in order to correspond to “respective members” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, line 1—“member systems” appears to be referring to “respective members” of line 18 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, line 1 may be amended to state --the respective members-- in order to correspond to “respective members” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, line 3—“the threshold value assignments” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. In order to overcome this objection, line 3 may be amended to state --threshold value assignments-- or claim 16 may be amended to become dependent on claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, lines 3-4—“the distribution rules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. In order to overcome this objection, lines 3-4 may be amended to state --distribution rules-- or claim 16 may be amended to become dependent on claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, line 2—“the number of members” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. In order to overcome this objection, line 2 may be amended to state –a number of the respective members--.
Regarding claim 18, lines 2-3—“a plurality of receiver systems” appears to be referring to “a plurality of receiver systems” of line 6 of claim 1. In order to overcome this objection, lines 2-3 may be amended to state --the plurality of receiver systems-- in order to correspond to “a plurality of receiver systems” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, line 11—“the systems” appears to be referring to “computer systems” of line 2. In order to overcome this objection, line 11 may be amended to state --the computer systems-- in order to correspond to “computer systems” of line 2.
Regarding claim 19, lines 14-15—“the first network architecture” appears to be referring to “a distributed architecture” of line 10. In order to overcome this objection, lines 14-15 may be amended to state --the distributed architecture-- in order to correspond to “distributed architecture” of line 10.
Regarding claim 19, line 18—“the external communication request” appears to be referring to “external communication requests” of line 16. In order to overcome this objection, line 18 may be amended to state --the external communication requests-- in order to correspond to “external communication requests” of line 16.
Regarding claim 20, line 1—“The computer readable medium of claim 19” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. In order to overcome this objection, line 1 may be amended to state --The method of claim 19--.
Regarding claim 20, line 2—“an execution manager sub-system” appears to be referring to “at least one execution manager sub-system” of lines 5-6 of claim 19. In order to overcome this objection, line 2 may be amended to state --the at least one execution manager sub-system-- in order to correspond to “at least one execution manager sub-system” of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, line 3—“members” appears to be referring to “respective members” of claim 19. In order to overcome this objection, line 3 may be amended to state --the respective members-- in order to correspond to “respective members” of claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, “<250K /per institution per client or modified by best rates, etc.” will be interpreted as not being a part of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Martin et al. (US 2022/0005115 A1) in view of Kassimis et al. (US 2018/0212999 A1).
Regarding claim 1, San Martin teaches a system, e.g., real-time account allocation and management (AAM) system 100 (Fig. 1, el. 100), the system comprising at least one processor, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 may include at least one processor (e.g., processing device 1002 shown in FIG. 10) (Fig. 1, el. 102; Fig. 10, el. 1002; Para. 69), and configured to:
define a first network of computer systems, having associated communication protocols, e.g., System 100 may include at least one customizable dynamic MDA server 102 (also referred to as MDA server(s) 102 herein), and one or more financial institutions 104-1,…, 104-M (designated generally as financial institution (s) 104, where M is greater than or equal to 1) (Fig. 1; Para. 36);
MDA server(s) 102 and financial institution(s) 104 may be communicatively coupled via one or more communication (e.g., wired and/or wireless) networks, wherein the one or more networks may include a private network (e.g., a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), intranet, etc.) and/or a public network (e.g., the Internet) (Fig. 1; Para. 36);
Examiner note: The network of computer systems—MDA server(s) and financial institution(s)—may be coupled by multiple communication networks such as wired and/or wireless networks. A wired network inherently has its own communication protocol and a wireless network inherently has its own communication protocol. Furthermore, the networks may include a LAN, WAN, or intranet and or the Internet. Each of these utilize its own set of communication protocols with the Internet having multiple itself—TCP, IP, and
respective security…for managing communication between the computer systems in the first network, e.g., security management system 114 may include one or more encryption and decryption keys and may be configured to provide data security protection of data received (or transmitted) via the data feed interfaces, and Security management system 114 may be configured to provide automated encryption of all sensitive data stored in MDA server(s) 102 and/or transmitted from MDA server(s) 102 to financial institution(s) 104, including independent encryption keys by institution for the case of multi-tenant deployments, and security management system 114 may operate synchronous with middleware engine 112 to decrypt received data from the data feed interface(s) (Fig. 1, el. 112, 114; Para. 50);
wherein the first network of computer systems includes at least one execution manager, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 (Fig. 1, el. 102), wherein the MDA server(s) 102 includes Automated lifecycle processing system 124/200 (Fig. 1, el. 124; Fig. 2, el. 200), and a plurality of receiver systems, e.g., one or more financial institutions 104-1,…, 104-M (designated generally as financial institution (s) 104, where M is greater than or equal to 1) (Fig. 1, el. 104);
establish security…in response to integrating any computer system to the first network to secure communication and define secure operation within the first network, e.g., security management system 114 may include one or more encryption and decryption keys and may be configured to provide data security protection of data received (or transmitted) via the data feed interfaces, and Security management system 114 may be configured to provide automated encryption of all sensitive data stored in MDA server(s) 102 and/or transmitted from MDA server(s) 102 to financial institution(s) 104, including independent encryption keys by institution for the case of multi-tenant deployments, and security management system 114 may operate synchronous with middleware engine 112 to decrypt received data from the data feed interface(s) (Fig. 1, el. 112, 114; Para. 50);
define a distributed architecture comprising at least some of the systems of the first network to manage secure distributed operations, e.g., components 112-124 of MDA server(s) 102 may be embodied on a single computing device, and in other examples, components 112-124 of MDA server(s) 102 may be embodied on two or more computing devices distributed over several physical locations, connected by one or more wired and/or wireless links (Fig. 1; Para. 70);
security management system 114 may include one or more encryption and decryption keys and may be configured to provide data security protection of data received (or transmitted) via the data feed interfaces, and Security management system 114 may be configured to provide automated encryption of all sensitive data stored in MDA server(s) 102 and/or transmitted from MDA server(s) 102 to financial institution(s) 104, including independent encryption keys by institution for the case of multi-tenant deployments, and security management system 114 may operate synchronous with middleware engine 112 to decrypt received data from the data feed interface(s) (Fig. 1, el. 112, 114; Para. 50);
establish an aggregation point, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 (Fig. 1, el. 102), within the distributed architecture of the first network maintained by the at least one execution manager, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 may be configured to communicate with financial institution(s) 104 to obtain (and continually monitor) institute-specific DD information 134 associated with opening and/or maintaining DD account(s) (DDAs) 110, and MDA server(s) 102 may also be configured to communicate with user device(s) 106 via one or more web interface(s) 120, in order to create at least one user-defined MDA 136 (Fig. 1; Para. 37);
MDA server(s) 102 may further be configured to manage user-defined MDA(s) 136 over their entire lifecycle (via automated lifecycle processing system 124), and may communicate any opening and/or processing DDA processing action(s) 138 for one or more DDA(s) 110 to a corresponding financial institution among financial institution(s) 104 (Fig. 1; Para. 39);
integrate a first communication endpoint, e.g., web interface(s) 120 (Fig. 1, el. 120), into the first network architecture, the first communication endpoint configured to:
manage external communication requests having associated functions, e.g., Web interface(s) 120 may be configured to present one or more interactive graphical user interfaces (GUIs) on user device(s) 106 and/or on a computer device of financial institution(s) 104, wherein Web interface(s) 120 may include customized MDA GUI 126 for interactive presentation of MD account information directly on user device(s) 106 (and/or via a computing device of financial institution(s) 104), wherein Web interface(s) 120 may also include institution console 128 for interactive presentation of DD account information on at least one computing device of financial institution(s) 104 (Fig. 1; Para. 55);
MDA GUI 126 may generate a real-time GUI with account creation tools that allows users (via user device(s) 106 and/or a computing device on financial institution(s) 104) to introduce input for creating an MDA with one or more user-defined deposit parameters (Fig. 1; Para. 57); and
transform the external communication request and associated functions into the secure distributed operations for execution on respective members of the distributed architecture, e.g., at step 310, MDA GUI 126 may receive one or more indications of user-defined characteristic(s) for the (to-be-created) MDA 136 via the user input tool(s) (Fig. 3, el. 310; para. 88);
at step 312, processing engine 122, via optimization algorithm(s) 130, may determine an optimal (proposed) combination of DDAs among one or more of financial institution(s) 104, based on the user-defined characteristic(s) (in step 310) and the most up-to-date DD account condition data from among financial institution(s) (in step 302) (Fig. 3, el. 312; Para. 88);
at step 316, MDA GUI 126 may determine, responsive to step 314, whether any user adjustments to the proposed DDA combination are indicated via the user input tool(s) (Fig. 3, el. 316; Para. 89);
at step 324, MDA server(s) 102 may transmit user-defined MDA information for creating the MDA and DDA combination to automated lifecycle processing system 124 (Fig. 3, el. 324; Para. 93);
at step 330, processing engine 122, via dynamic balancer 132 and optimization algorithm(s) 130, may adjust one or more of the DDAs in the DDA combination (e.g., via rebalancing pricing) responsive to any detected change in the monitored data (at step 328) (Fig. 3, el. 330; Para. 96).
San Martin does not explicitly teach to:
define a first network of computer systems, having associated communication protocols, and respective security requirements for managing communication between the computer systems in the first network; and
establish security definitions in response to integrating any computer system to the first network to secure communication and define secure operation within the first network.
Kassimis teaches to: define a first network of computer systems, having associated communication protocols, and respective security requirements for managing communication between the computer systems in the first network, e.g., the security system 100 may be incorporated into a host 110, or local host 110, and may monitor traffic to and from the host 110 to determine whether adequate security is applied to that traffic (Fig. 1, el. 100, 110; Para. 16);
the security system 100 may allow network security administration to define the centralized security policy, which may include security attributes that are deemed acceptable for the applicable environment, wherein the centralized security policy may include a set of approved network security protocols that can be used, wherein the centralized security policy may indicate requirements of fine-grain attributes, such as a minimum version of the protocol, approved cryptographic cipher suites, or other specific requirements for security attributes, wherein the policy may identify custom rules for various traffic patterns based on combinations of transport protocols, local remote IP addresses or networks, and local or remote port ranges (Para. 39); and
establish security definitions in response to integrating any computer system to the first network to secure communication and define secure operation within the first network, e.g., the policy may identify custom rules for various traffic patterns based on combinations of transport protocols, local remote IP addresses or networks, and local or remote port ranges, and the policy may include a set of actions to take if network traffic does not meet the specified requirements of one or more approved network security protocols (Para. 39);
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a method 200 for discovering and maintaining security attributes of IP network traffic at a host, wherein the method 200 of FIG. 2 occurs at certain points in time, where a first of these points is when the first byte of application data flows over a TCP connection after the connection is successfully established (Fig. 2, el. 200; Para. 50);
at block 205, a segment of inbound or outbound TCP traffic may be detected, and at decision block 210, it may be determined whether the applicable connection is already identified by the network security protocol informational API 185 in the security database 160 (Fig. 1, el. 160, 185; Fig. 2, el. 205, 210; Para. 51);
if the connection is not yet identified by the network security protocol informational API 185 in the security database 160, then at decision block 215, it may be determined whether the stream contains an expected TLS or SSL handshake message, and if an expected handshake message is identified at decision block 215, then at block 225 a current state of the handshake may be recorded in the security database 160 based on the handshake message observed in the stream (Fig. 2, el. 215, 225; Para. 52);
at decision block 230, it may be determined whether the handshake message completed the handshake, where if the handshake was completed, then at block 235 the security system 100 may insert security attributes for this connection into the security database 160 based on stream inspection (Fig. 2, el. 230, 235; Para. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify San Martin to include to: define a first network of computer systems, having associated communication protocols, and respective security requirements for managing communication between the computer systems in the first network; and establish security definitions in response to integrating any computer system to the first network to secure communication and define secure operation within the first network, using the known method of defining a centralized security policy that includes approved network security protocols and approved cipher suites, and inserting security attributes and security handshake information into the security database based on the stream inspection after the connection is successfully established, as taught by Kassimis, in combination with the sweep account system of San Martin, for the purpose of utilizing a centralized network security policy so that the policy can be enforced in the TCP/IP stack (Kassimis-Para. 15).
Regarding claim 2, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the distributed operation is managed by the at least one execution manager, e.g., Automated lifecycle processing system 124 may be configured to receive user-defined/system-created MDA(s) 136 comprising the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110 (to be opened) from processing engine 122 and may automatically manage the treatment (i.e., processing) of the created user-defined MDA(s) 136 (including the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110) over their lifecycle(s) (San Martin-Fig. 1; Para. 68).
Regarding claim 3, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to define a distributed set of operations for execution by the members of the distributed architecture, e.g., Automated lifecycle processing system 124 may be configured to receive user-defined/system-created MDA(s) 136 comprising the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110 (to be opened) from processing engine 122 and may automatically manage the treatment (i.e., processing) of the created user-defined MDA(s) 136 (including the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110) over their lifecycle(s) (San Martin-Fig. 1; Para. 68);
automated lifecycle processing system 200 may also generate and transmit one or more DDA opening and/or processing actions 224 to one or more of financial institution(s) 104 and/or any other remote entity system (e.g., for downstream internal and/or external processing) (San Martin-Fig. 2, el. 200, 224; Para. 71).
Regarding claim 5, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to record and maintain records for individual data requests, e.g., Database structure(s) 118 may be configured to store information for one or more (current) user-defined MDAs 136 for one or more users, and database structure(s) 118 may be configured to store one or more of DDA opening/processing action(s) 136, financial institution information (e.g., data security, data format, normalization, any network identifiers, geolocation(s), etc.), and user information (e.g., personal, account, network identifier(s), geolocation(s), user device information, etc.) (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 118; Para. 53);
automated lifecycle processing system 200 may also generate and transmit one or more electronic files 226 to one or more among financial institution(s) 104, user device(s) 106, funding service(s) 108 and/or any other remote entity system, wherein electronic file(s) 226 may include any suitable information regarding MDA(s) 136 and/or DDA(s) 110 that may be useful for a particular entity (San Martin-Fig. 2, el. 226; Para. 71).
Regarding claim 6, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to return an acknowledgement or results of the execution of the distributed operation to the source of the external communication request, e.g., At step 308, MDA GUI 126 may present an MDA creation tool including one or more user input tools for creating an MDA having user-defined characteristic(s) (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 126; Fig. 3, el. 308; Para. 87);
at step 314, the proposed optimal combination of DDAs (also referred to herein as DDA combination) may be presented on MDA GUI 126, such that the proposed DDA combination corresponds to the user-defined characteristic(s) (received at step 310) (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 310, 314; Para. 88);
Steps 312-318 may be repeated one or more times depending on any further user adjustments (San Martin-Para. 90);
FIG. 6E illustrates an exemplary pop-up window 634 of MDA builder GUI 600 which may be displayed (e.g., over screen 610) if the user selects “Place funds” button 618 and chooses the DDA allocation shown in display region 606 in screen 610 (San Martin-Fig. 6E; Para. 116).
Regarding claim 7, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to host at least a portion of the first communication endpoint, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 includes web interface(s) 120 (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 120).
Regarding claim 9, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: enhance a pre-existing digital banking system (DBS) by mapping operations of the pre-existing DBS into distributed operations executed on the distributed architecture, e.g., middleware engine 112 may be configured to communicate with the various data feed interfaces, and may at least one of reformat the received data (representing institution-specific DD information 134) to a common format and/or normalize the data from among the data feeds, thereby creating data having a uniform data format, and Middleware engine 112 may be configured to perform the reformatting and normalization without impacting core processing on MDA sever(s) 102 or that of financial institution(s) 104 (San Martin-Para. 49);
the AAM system of the present disclosure comprises a technical arrangement of computer components and processes that, together, form a new system architecture that brings real-time technology to this field for the first time (San Martin-Para. 22).
Regarding claim 10, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the mapping is managed by the at least one execution manager, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 includes middleware engine 112 (San Martin-Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises: a second communication endpoint configured to integrate into external systems and manage secure communication with the first communication endpoint, e.g., insured financial institutions may have access to a console of the AAM system of the present disclosure, where the offered APY may be inputted, wherein the console may be fed (e.g., manually and/or electronically) through an application programming interface (API) (San Martin-Para. 32);
financial institution(s) 104 may include a computing device configured to employ an internet browser for secured connections via a wired and/or wireless communications network to centrally hosted and managed MDA server(s) 102 (San Martin-Para. 42);
Web interface(s) 120 may also be configured to present institution console 128 (e.g., an interactive GUI) for presentation on one or more computing devices of financial institution(s) 104, wherein Institution console 138 may be configured to generate one or more interactive webpages for management of individual DDA(s) 110 for financial institution(s) 104, wherein institution console 128 may be fed through an API (San Martin-Fig. 1 el. 128; Para. 63).
Regarding claim 12, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the second communication endpoint is configured to process native operations requested in a pre-existing DBS into secure communication requests to the distributed architecture via the first communication endpoint, e.g., insured financial institutions may have access to a console of the AAM system of the present disclosure, where the offered APY may be inputted, wherein the console may be fed (e.g., manually and/or electronically) through an application programming interface (API) (San Martin-Para. 32);
financial institution(s) 104 may include a computing device configured to employ an internet browser for secured connections via a wired and/or wireless communications network to centrally hosted and managed MDA server(s) 102 (San Martin-Para. 42);
Web interface(s) 120 may also be configured to present institution console 128 (e.g., an interactive GUI) for presentation on one or more computing devices of financial institution(s) 104, wherein Institution console 138 may be configured to generate one or more interactive webpages for management of individual DDA(s) 110 for financial institution(s) 104, wherein institution console 128 may be fed through an API (San Martin-Fig. 1 el. 128; Para. 63).
Regarding claim 13, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first communication endpoint is configured to map native operations received from the pre-existing DBS to an initial number of member systems on the first network, e.g., middleware engine 112 may be configured to communicate with the various data feed interfaces, and may at least one of reformat the received data (representing institution-specific DD information 134) to a common format and/or normalize the data from among the data feeds, thereby creating data having a uniform data format, and Middleware engine 112 may be configured to perform the reformatting and normalization without impacting core processing on MDA sever(s) 102 or that of financial institution(s) 104 (San Martin-Para. 49);
the AAM system of the present disclosure comprises a technical arrangement of computer components and processes that, together, form a new system architecture that brings real-time technology to this field for the first time (San Martin-Para. 22).
Regarding claim 14, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the initial number of member systems is dynamically determined in response to a respective request, e.g., at step 312, processing engine 122, via optimization algorithm(s) 130, may determine an optimal (proposed) combination of DDAs among one or more of financial institution(s) 104, based on the user-defined characteristic(s) (in step 310) and the most up-to-date DD account condition data from among financial institution(s) (in step 302) (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 312; Para. 88);
Steps 312-318 may be repeated one or more times depending on any further user adjustments (San Martin-Para. 90);
at step 330, processing engine 122, via dynamic balancer 132 and optimization algorithm(s) 130, may adjust one or more of the DDAs in the DDA combination (e.g., via rebalancing pricing) responsive to any detected change in the monitored data (at step 328) (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 330; Para. 96).
Regarding claim 15, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the initial number of member systems is dynamically determined based on threshold value assignments or distribution rules. (e.g., <250K /per institution per client or modified by best rates, etc.), e.g., at step 310, MDA GUI 126 may receive one or more indications of user-defined characteristic(s) for the (to-be-created) MDA 136 via the user input tool(s), wherein the user-defined characteristic(s) may include a total amount to be placed in the MDA 136 for complete FDIC insurance (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 310; Para. 88);
at step 312, processing engine 122, via optimization algorithm(s) 130, may determine an optimal (proposed) combination of DDAs among one or more of financial institution(s) 104, based on the user-defined characteristic(s) (in step 310) and the most up-to-date DD account condition data from among financial institution(s) (in step 302) (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 312; Para. 88);
Steps 312-318 may be repeated one or more times depending on any further user adjustments (San Martin-Para. 90);
at step 330, processing engine 122, via dynamic balancer 132 and optimization algorithm(s) 130, may adjust one or more of the DDAs in the DDA combination (e.g., via rebalancing pricing) responsive to any detected change in the monitored data (at step 328) (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 330; Para. 96);
the detected change(s) in monitored data may be based on one or more predefined criteria (such as at least one predefined rebalancing threshold), wherein data monitor 116 may detect a change in an APY value of at least one financial institution (e.g., financial institution 104-1) that may be useful for automatically rebalancing DDA(s) 110 of a particular user-defined MDA 136 (San Martin-Para. 51).
Regarding claim 16, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: monitor a status of a client account in response to executing operations, e.g., At step 328, data monitor 116 may monitor various data including one or more of DD account condition data among financial institution(s) 104, DDA information among financial institution(s) 104, MDA information (e.g., stored in database structure(s) 118) and any user input via the account management tool(s) of MDA GUI 126 (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 328; Para. 95), and
identify any operation that results in exceeding the threshold value assignments or the distribution rules, e.g., at step 330, processing engine 122, via dynamic balancer 132 and optimization algorithm(s) 130, may adjust one or more of the DDAs in the DDA combination (e.g., via rebalancing pricing) responsive to any detected change in the monitored data (at step 328), wherein the rebalancing operation(s) may depend on any user rebalancing criteria (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 330; Para. 96).
Regarding claim 17, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: update required participants according to the number of members of the first network, e.g., Database structure(s) 118 may be configured to store information for one or more (current) user-defined MDAs 136 for one or more users, and database structure(s) 118 may be configured to store one or more of DDA opening/processing action(s) 136, financial institution information (e.g., data security, data format, normalization, any network identifiers, geolocation(s), etc.), and user information (e.g., personal, account, network identifier(s), geolocation(s), user device information, etc.) (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 118; Para. 53);
at step 330, processing engine 122, via dynamic balancer 132 and optimization algorithm(s) 130, may adjust one or more of the DDAs in the DDA combination (e.g., via rebalancing pricing) responsive to any detected change in the monitored data (at step 328), wherein the rebalancing operation(s) may depend on any user rebalancing criteria (San Martin-Fig. 3, el. 330; Para. 96).
Regarding claim 18, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first network of computer systems includes the at least one execution manager, e.g., MDA server(s) 102 (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 102), and at least one sweep system, e.g., Automated lifecycle processing system 124/200 (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 124; Fig. 2, el. 200), at least one custodian system, e.g., Funding service(s) 108 (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 108); FIGS. 5-9C, these figures illustrate one or more example web interfaces (comprising one or more interactive GUIs) for users (e.g., depositors, financial intermediaries such as advisors, distribution partners, etc.) (San Martin-Para. 106), and a plurality of receiver systems, e.g., one or more financial institutions 104-1,…, 104-M (designated generally as financial institution (s) 104, where M is greater than or equal to 1) (San Martin-Fig. 1, el. 104).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 4, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Martin in view of Kassimis and further in view of Bent et al. (US 8,260,705 B1).
Regarding claim 4, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 3.
San Martin further teaches wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to define respective ones of the set of operations for execution…of individual data requests on…record values, e.g., Automated lifecycle processing system 124 may be configured to receive user-defined/system-created MDA(s) 136 comprising the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110 (to be opened) from processing engine 122 and may automatically manage the treatment (i.e., processing) of the created user-defined MDA(s) 136 (including the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110) over their lifecycle(s) (San Martin-Fig. 1; Para. 68);
automated lifecycle processing system 200 may also generate and transmit one or more DDA opening and/or processing actions 224 to one or more of financial institution(s) 104 and/or any other remote entity system (e.g., for downstream internal and/or external processing) (San Martin-Fig. 2, el. 200, 224; Para. 71).
San Martin in view of Kassimis does not clearly teach wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to define respective ones of the set of operations for execution as aggregations of individual data requests on omnibus record values.
Bent teaches wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to define respective ones of the set of operations for execution as aggregations of individual data requests on omnibus record values, e.g., block 500 represents an operation of maintaining or having maintained or accessing, by one or more computers, an electronic database comprising: (i) aggregated deposit account information for one or more of government backed-insured and interest-bearing aggregated deposit accounts, held in one or more depository institutions, comprising at least a first depository institution, each of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts holding funds of more than one client; and (ii) client account information for a plurality of client accounts for a plurality of clients whose funds had been accepted for deposit in the names of the respective clients at the first depository institution (Fig. 5, el. 500; Col. 14, line 58-Col. 15, line 3);
Block 510 represents an operation of obtaining a plurality of net credit/debit amounts during a month period, with each respective net credit/debit amount comprising a sum of credits to and/or debits with respect to multiple of the client accounts for a respective sub-period of the month (Fig. 5, el. 510; Col. 15, lines 6-20);
Block 520 represents an operation of generating data for depositing/transferring funds to or withdrawing/transferring funds from at least one of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts multiple times in a month period, based at least in part on one or more of the net credit/debit amounts for one or more sub-periods of time (Fig. 5, el. 520; Col. 15, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify San Martin in view of Kassimis to include wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to define respective ones of the set of operations for execution as aggregations of individual data requests on omnibus record values, using the known method of accessing, by one or more computers, aggregated deposit account information for one or more of government backed-insured and interest-bearing aggregated deposit accounts and obtaining a plurality of net credit/debit amounts during a month period, with each respective net credit/debit amount comprising a sum of credits to and/or debits with respect to multiple of the client accounts for a respective sub-period of the month, as taught by Bent, in combination with the sweep account system of San Martin in view of Kassimis, for the purpose of limiting the number of transactions that would take place if the transactions were not aggregated.
Regarding claim 8, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the system of claim 1.
San Martin in view of Kassimis does not clearly teach wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to:
consolidate over a defined time period a plurality of single function operations received from external communication requests for a plurality of clients; and
determine at least one aggregate operation based on the consolidation of the single function operations; and
communicate a respective aggregate operation to at least some of the members of the distributed architecture associated with generating a final output for the at least one aggregation operation.
Bent teaches wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to: consolidate over a defined time period a plurality of single function operations received from external communication requests for a plurality of clients, e.g., block 500 represents an operation of maintaining or having maintained or accessing, by one or more computers, an electronic database comprising: (i) aggregated deposit account information for one or more of government backed-insured and interest-bearing aggregated deposit accounts, held in one or more depository institutions, comprising at least a first depository institution, each of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts holding funds of more than one client; and (ii) client account information for a plurality of client accounts for a plurality of clients whose funds had been accepted for deposit in the names of the respective clients at the first depository institution (Fig. 5, el. 500; Col. 14, line 58-Col. 15, line 3);
Block 510 represents an operation of obtaining a plurality of net credit/debit amounts during a month period, with each respective net credit/debit amount comprising a sum of credits to and/or debits with respect to multiple of the client accounts for a respective sub-period of the month (Fig. 5, el. 510; Col. 15, lines 6-20); and
determine at least one aggregate operation based on the consolidation of the single function operations, e.g., Block 520 represents an operation of generating data for depositing/transferring funds to or withdrawing/transferring funds from at least one of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts multiple times in a month period, based at least in part on one or more of the net credit/debit amounts for one or more sub-periods of time (Fig. 5, el. 520; Col. 15, lines 21-26); and
communicate a respective aggregate operation to at least some of the members of the distributed architecture associated with generating a final output for the at least one aggregation operation, e.g., Block 520 represents an operation of generating data for depositing/transferring funds to or withdrawing/transferring funds from at least one of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts multiple times in a month period, based at least in part on one or more of the net credit/debit amounts for one or more sub-periods of time (Fig. 5, el. 520; Col. 15, lines 21-26);
a self-clearing broker dealer 100 provides an insured deposit program that causes sweep funds received at one or more intermediary banks 110 associated with the self-clearing broker dealer, which funds represent deposits and withdrawals for customers of multiple other broker dealers BD1-BDn, to be allocated to and invested in aggregated accounts in a plurality of program banks 130-140 to thereby obtain FDIC insurance for single large accounts of over the current FDIC limit for insurance (Fig. 1; Col. 20, lines 12-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify San Martin in view of Kassimis to include wherein the at least one execution manager is configured to: consolidate over a defined time period a plurality of single function operations received from external communication requests for a plurality of clients; and determine at least one aggregate operation based on the consolidation of the single function operations; and communicate a respective aggregate operation to at least some of the members of the distributed architecture associated with generating a final output for the at least one aggregation operation, using the known method of accessing, by one or more computers, aggregated deposit account information for one or more of government backed-insured and interest-bearing aggregated deposit accounts and obtaining a plurality of net credit/debit amounts during a month period, with each respective net credit/debit amount comprising a sum of credits to and/or debits with respect to multiple of the client accounts for a respective sub-period of the month, as taught by Bent, in combination with the sweep account system of San Martin in view of Kassimis, for the purpose of limiting the number of transactions that would take place if the transactions were not aggregated.
Regarding claim 20, San Martin in view of Kassimis teaches the computer readable medium of claim 19.
San Martin further teaches wherein the method further comprises defining, by an execution manager sub-system, a distributed set of operations for execution by members of the distributed architecture that are executed in response to individual data requests on…data records, e.g., Automated lifecycle processing system 124 may be configured to receive user-defined/system-created MDA(s) 136 comprising the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110 (to be opened) from processing engine 122 and may automatically manage the treatment (i.e., processing) of the created user-defined MDA(s) 136 (including the optimized combination of DDA(s) 110) over their lifecycle(s) (San Martin-Fig. 1; Para. 68);
automated lifecycle processing system 200 may also generate and transmit one or more DDA opening and/or processing actions 224 to one or more of financial institution(s) 104 and/or any other remote entity system (e.g., for downstream internal and/or external processing) (San Martin-Fig. 2, el. 200, 224; Para. 71).
San Martin in view of Kassimis does not clearly teach wherein the method further comprises defining, by an execution manager sub-system, a distributed set of operations for execution by members of the distributed architecture that are executed in response to individual data requests on omnibus data records.
Bent teaches wherein the method further comprises defining, by an execution manager sub-system, a distributed set of operations for execution by members of the distributed architecture that are executed in response to individual data requests on omnibus data records, e.g., block 500 represents an operation of maintaining or having maintained or accessing, by one or more computers, an electronic database comprising: (i) aggregated deposit account information for one or more of government backed-insured and interest-bearing aggregated deposit accounts, held in one or more depository institutions, comprising at least a first depository institution, each of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts holding funds of more than one client; and (ii) client account information for a plurality of client accounts for a plurality of clients whose funds had been accepted for deposit in the names of the respective clients at the first depository institution (Fig. 5, el. 500; Col. 14, line 58-Col. 15, line 3);
Block 510 represents an operation of obtaining a plurality of net credit/debit amounts during a month period, with each respective net credit/debit amount comprising a sum of credits to and/or debits with respect to multiple of the client accounts for a respective sub-period of the month (Fig. 5, el. 510; Col. 15, lines 6-20);
Block 520 represents an operation of generating data for depositing/transferring funds to or withdrawing/transferring funds from at least one of the one or more aggregated deposit accounts multiple times in a month period, based at least in part on one or more of the net credit/debit amounts for one or more sub-periods of time (Fig. 5, el. 520; Col. 15, lines 21-26);
a self-clearing broker dealer 100 provides an insured deposit program that causes sweep funds received at one or more intermediary banks 110 associated with the self-clearing broker dealer, which funds represent deposits and withdrawals for customers of multiple other broker dealers BD1-BDn, to be allocated to and invested in aggregated accounts in a plurality of program banks 130-140 to thereby obtain FDIC insurance for single large accounts of over the current FDIC limit for insurance (Fig. 1; Col. 20, lines 12-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify San Martin in view of Kassimis to include defining, by an execution manager sub-system, a distributed set of operations for execution by members of the distributed architecture that are executed in response to individual data requests on omnibus data records, using the known method of accessing, by one or more computers, aggregated deposit account information for one or more of government backed-insured and interest-bearing aggregated deposit accounts and obtaining a plurality of net credit/debit amounts during a month period, with each respective net credit/debit amount comprising a sum of credits to and/or debits with respect to multiple of the client accounts for a respective sub-period of the month, as taught by Bent, in combination with the sweep account system of San Martin in view of Kassimis, for the purpose of limiting the number of transactions that would take place if the transactions were not aggregated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (US 2022/0248226 A1)—Smith et al. discloses the techniques for policy provisioning may include resource update access policy automation, directory resource access policy automation, or hidden resources access policy automation, as monitored and operated with an access management service (AMS). In an example, the AMS monitors resources to receive a notification when they change. If the change observed is an addition or deletion of a resource object, the AMS responds by performing security analysis of devices hosting the new resource(s), which may further result in device onboarding actions (Abstract).
Kothapalli (US 2022/0044315 A1)—Kothapalli discloses a brokerage sweep account amount and a brokered financial institution account amount are identified for a client. The brokered financial institution account for the client pays a higher interest rate than the brokerage sweep account and the brokered financial institution account pays a higher interest rate than a standard savings account (Kothapalli-Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY DUFFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM (ET).
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571) 272-8878. 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.
07 May 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights