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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 6/17/2026, claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1, 10, and 19.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 6/17/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Secondary reference Mundir teaches: parsing, by the primary computing system, the network token to determine an access schedule for accessing a subset of data records of the second profile maintained at the secondary computing system, the access schedule identifying at least one predetermined time period during which the primary computing system is authorized to access the subset of data records; (Mundar: Figs. 5-6, 11-14, 17-18, ¶32, ¶50, ¶65, ¶112-¶116, ¶214, ¶234, ¶255-¶256, i.e., providing access tokens to user device for accessing resources on the network, wherein the access token is used to determine various time periods (i.e., schedule) for accessing one or more resources on the network)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10963589 B1 (hereinafter ‘Lila’) in view of US 20190391980 A1 (hereinafter ‘Mundar’).
As regards claim 1, Lila (US 10963589 B1) discloses: A method, comprising: providing, by a primary computing system via a client application corresponding to the primary computing system, a user interface that lists a plurality of indicators corresponding to a plurality of secondary computing systems, the client application executing at a client device associated with a user profile of the primary computing system; (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11, i.e., the financial service provider (i.e., primary computing system) providing access to the a user device via an app running on the user device to access plurality of accounts maintained by 3rd parties, wherein, 25:54 to 28:64, claim 1, the user provides access permissions to financial service provider to access each of the 3rd party accounts to be accessed via the financial service provider wherein the access permissions are provided via APIs and tokens)
responsive to detecting a selection of an indicator of a secondary computing system of the plurality of secondary computing systems at the user interface, receiving, by the primary computing system from the client device, a network token identifying a permission for accessing a second profile maintained at the secondary computing system; (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11, i.e., the financial service provider (i.e., primary computing system) providing access to the a user device via an app running on the user device to access plurality of accounts maintained by 3rd parties, wherein, 25:54 to 28:64, claim 1, the user provides access permissions to financial service provider to access each of the 3rd party accounts to be accessed via the financial service provider wherein the access permissions are provided via APIs and tokens)
However, Lila does not but in analogous art, Mundar (US 20190391980 A1) teaches: parsing, by the primary computing system, the network token to determine an access schedule for accessing a subset of data records of the second profile maintained at the secondary computing system, the access schedule identifying at least one predetermined time period during which the primary computing system is authorized to access the subset of data records; (Mundar: Figs. 5-6, 11-14, 17-18, ¶32, ¶50, ¶65, ¶112-¶116, ¶214, ¶234, ¶255-¶256, i.e., providing access tokens to user device for accessing resources on the network, wherein the access token is used to determine various time periods (i.e., schedule) for accessing one or more resources on the network)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lila to include determining resource access schedule with associated access tokens as taught by Mundar with the motivation to provide efficient resource allocation using access tokens (Mundar: Figs. 11-14, 17-18, ¶32, ¶50, ¶214, ¶253)
Lila et al combination further teaches: retrieving, by the primary computing system, using the network token, the subset of data records from the secondary computing system within the at least one predetermined time period identified in the the access schedule; and (i.e., primary computing system) providing access to the a user device via an app running on the user device to access plurality of accounts maintained by 3rd parties, wherein, 25:54 to 28:64, claim 1, the user provides access permissions to financial service provider to access each of the 3rd party accounts to be accessed via the financial service provider wherein the access permissions are provided via APIs and tokens. See also, Fig. 10-13, the interface gets updated with various 3rd party account information of the user. See also, Mundar: Figs. 5-6, 11-14, 17-18, ¶32, ¶50, ¶65, ¶112-¶116, ¶234, ¶214, ¶255-¶256)
updating, by the primary computing system, the user interface at the client application to present the subset of data records of the second profile. (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11, i.e., the financial service provider (i.e., primary computing system) providing access to a user device via an app running on the user device to access plurality of accounts maintained by 3rd parties, wherein, 25:54 to 28:64, claim 1, the user provides access permissions to financial service provider to access each of the 3rd party accounts to be accessed via the financial service provider wherein the access permissions are provided via APIs and tokens. See also, Fig. 10-13, the interface gets updated with various 3rd party account information of the user)
Claims 10 and 19 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 1 above and are therefore rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the primary computing system from the secondary computing system, authorization to access an application programming interface (API) of the secondary computing system. (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10-13, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11)
Claims 11 and 20 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 2 above and are therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 3, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the subset of data records are retrieved using the API of the secondary computing system. (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10-13, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11)
Claim 12 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 3 above and is therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 5, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising updating, by the primary computing system, the user profile based on the subset of data records of the second profile. (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10-13, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11)
Claim 14 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 5 above and is therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 6, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network token indicates that the subset of data records can be accessed periodically, and wherein retrieving the subset of data records from the secondary computing system comprises periodically retrieving the subset of data records from the secondary computing system. (Lila: Fig. 27E)
Claim 15 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 6 above and is therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 7, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein retrieving the subset of data records from the secondary computing system comprises performing a single API call using the API of the secondary computing system. (Lila: Figs. 1-7, 10-13, 18:60 to 22:49, 24:50-25:11)
Claim 16 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 7 above and is therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 8, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the single API call comprises one or more parameters identified in the network token. (Lila: 13:65 to 14:5)
Claim 17 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 8 above and is therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lila in view of Mundar in view of US 20170161973 A1 (hereinafter ‘Katta’).
As regards claim 9, Lila et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. Lila does not but in analogous art, Katta (US 20170161973 A1) teaches: wherein the network token comprises an expiration time stamp, and further comprising providing, by the primary computing system, a prompt to the client application indicating that the network token has expired responsive when a current time exceeds the expiration time stamp. (Katta: ¶66, i.e., prompting/notifying user of an expiring token)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lila to include notifying a user of an expiring token as taught by Katta with the motivation to maintain access to the system (Katta: ¶66)
Claim 18 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 9 above and is therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights