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 .
This office action is in response to amendments filed on April 8, 2026.
Claims 1, 12-13, 15-20 are amended. Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The rejections regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn as the claims have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 18-20 recite both “permission information” and “permissions information” interchangeably, e.g. Claim 1 recites “permission information” in line 10 of Claim 1 and “permissions information” in line 13 of Claim 1. It is recommended by the Examiner that the term be consistently referred to as “permissions information” for the sake of consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 13, 15-16, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0325021 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Fasching”, and further in view of Garg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0244060 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Garg”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Fasching teaches the following limitations:
A system for approving a transfer comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations to (Par. [0033], Par. [0034], Par. [0038], Par. [0040]). Fasching teaches a computerized system comprising a processor and memory which provides an interface for fund transfers.
access, from at least one database, user information for a plurality of users in a group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]). Fasching teaches accessing a database for registering user information. This includes a storage device containing information for multiple users, which can broadly be considered as belonging to a group as the claim does not specify how such a group is defined. Furthermore, Fasching describes service providers and financial institutions which can alternatively be interpreted as a group users belong to.
access, from the at least one database, account information for a plurality of disparate electronic accounts associated with the group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]). This user information is tied to account information of the user.
wherein the plurality of disparate electronic accounts are integrated and managed through a central entitlements engine [centralized web services] (Par. [0014], Par. [0027], Par. [0049], Par. [0053]). Fasching is directed towards centralized web services for financial accounts, i.e. a central entitlements engine under the broadest reasonable interpretation. (taught by Garg below)
access, from the at least one database, permissions information (Par. [0046], Par. [0053], Par. [0094], Par. [0095]). Fasching further teaches the storage device being accessed to store information regarding which users/accounts are blacklisted.
receive, through a user interface associated with the central entitlements engine, a transfer request for an account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts from a first user device associated with a first user of the plurality of users (Par. [0021], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0026], Par. [0028], Par. [0040], Par. [0041], Par. [0098]). Fasching teaches a sending device initiating a remittance transaction requestion using a user device.
(taught by Garg below)
send, based on the permissions information, the transfer request to a second user device associated with a second user of the plurality of users [recipient] (Par. [0091], Par. [0092], Par. [0094], Par. [0095], Par. [0097], Par. [0098], Par. [0100]). Fasching teaches integrating an eligibility check to handle a transaction, and this eligibility is based on the blacklist, i.e. permissions information.
and receive, from the second user device, an electronic indication of an approval of the transfer request (Par. [0024], Par. [0048], Par. [0079], Par. [0103]). Fasching teaches receiving a confirmation notification of a successful transaction.
(taught by Garg below)
Garg teaches the following limitation:
central entitlements engine that defines permission information for the plurality of users, the permission information including hierarchical permission levels for the plurality of users (Par. [0061]-[0067]). Garg teaches an entitlements engine which has primary users which modify the permissions of secondary users, and this can be in the context of financial transfers and banking.
determine, based on the permissions information, that approval of the transfer request is required from a second user of the plurality of users, the second user having a higher hierarchical permission level than the first user (Par. [0062]-[0067]). Garg teaches that actions of secondary users require authorization from primary users.
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by input from the second user device (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Garg teaches that a primary user can modify the permissions of other users.
Fasching teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not hierarchical permission levels and modification. Garg however teaches that an entitlements engine can have an administrator define access permissions for secondary users and this can be done in the context of funds transfers (Par. [0062]-[0064]) and in a granular way on a per-user basis (Par. [0003]-[0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching with the entitlements engine of Garg in order to gain the benefit of greater access control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the entitlements engine of Garg is compatible with the system of Fasching as both are directed towards funds transfer systems with user permissions, and that the entitlements engine of Garg would provide the benefit of finer access control by allowing an administrator to define permissions of secondary users on a per-user basis.
Regarding Claim 2:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
wherein the transfer request includes a first account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts for sending the transfer and a second account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts for receiving the transfer, and the first and second accounts are maintained by one entity [centralized web services] (Par. [0017], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0044], Par. [0064], Par. [0065]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sender/recipient accounts of Fasching can be considered to be maintained by the centralized web services system, as one entity, as Fasching teaches account management through integration with its system.
Regarding Claim 3:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
wherein the transfer request includes a first account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts for sending the transfer and a second account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts for receiving the transfer, and the first and second accounts are each maintained by different entities (Par. [0017], Par. [0023], Par. [0024]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sender/recipient accounts can be considered to be maintained by different entities as they can be maintained by different financial institutions.
Regarding Claim 4:
Garg teaches the following limitation:
wherein the second user device is configured to approve transfers for the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching in such a manner that the second user device is directed towards a device of a primary user/administrator, who authorizes transfers being higher up in the hierarchy.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Garg teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically approve or disapprove the transfer request based on rules established by the second user (Par. [0062]-[0067]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching such that the second user device has settings for blocking users from certain actions, i.e. rules for automatic disapproval under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Garg teaches the following limitation:
processor is further configured to update the permissions information to remove, by the second user, an access permission associated with the first user (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching such that the second user device can modify the permissions of other users.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Garg teaches the following limitation:
wherein the central entitlements engine is configured to provide an account update for each of the plurality of disparate electronic accounts for the group and the user interface displays the account updates (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching such that permissions for users can be modified, and this can be considered an account update which is displayed as part of a user’s settings.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to receive, from a third user device associated with a second user of the plurality of users, a second electronic indication of a second approval of the transfer request (Par. [0041], Par. [0042], Par. [0044], Par. [0103]). Fasching teaches that multiple financial institutions, which each have computers to provide the centralized web service to customers, can be involved with approving a received transaction. This corresponds to an additional user device for the second user, as this corresponds to the recipient, with a second approval.
(taught by Garg below)
Garg teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by input from the third user device (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching such that the second user can modify the permissions of other users from their device, and this can be applied to the additional device of the second user.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18:
Fasching teaches the following limitations:
A computerized method for approving an electronic transaction between at least two disparate electronic accounts, the method comprising: accessing, from at least one database, user information for a plurality of users in a group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]).
accessing, from the at least one database, account information for a plurality of disparate electronic accounts associated with the group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]).
wherein the plurality of disparate electronic accounts are integrated and managed through a central entitlements engine (Par. [0014], Par. [0027], Par. [0049], Par. [0053]).
(taught by Garg below)
accessing, from the at least one database, the permissions information (Par. [0046], Par. [0053], Par. [0094], Par. [0095]).
receiving, through a user interface associated with the central entitlements engine, a transfer request for an account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts from a first user device associated with a first user of the plurality of users (Par. [0021], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0026], Par. [0028], Par. [0040], Par. [0041], Par. [0098]).
(taught by Garg below)
sending, based on the permissions information, the transfer request to a second user device associated with the second user of the plurality of users (Par. [0091], Par. [0092], Par. [0094], Par. [0095], Par. [0097], Par. [0098], Par. [0100]).
and receiving, from the second user device, an electronic indication of an approval of the transfer request (Par. [0024], Par. [0048], Par. [0079], Par. [0103]).
(taught by Garg below)
Garg teaches the following limitation:
central entitlements engine that defines permission information for the plurality of users, the permission information including hierarchical permission levels for the plurality of users (Par. [0061]-[0067]).
determining, based on the permissions information, that approval of the transfer request is required from a second user of the plurality of users, the second user having a higher hierarchical permission level than the first user (Par. [0062]-[0067]).
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by input from the second user device (Par. [0062]-[0064]).
Fasching teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not hierarchical permission levels and modification. Garg however teaches that an entitlements engine can have an administrator define access permissions for secondary users and this can be done in the context of funds transfers (Par. [0062]-[0064]) and in a granular way on a per-user basis (Par. [0003]-[0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching with the entitlements engine of Garg in order to gain the benefit of greater access control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the entitlements engine of Garg is compatible with the system of Fasching as both are directed towards funds transfer systems with user permissions, and that the entitlements engine of Garg would provide the benefit of finer access control by allowing an administrator to define permissions of secondary users on a per-user basis.
Regarding Claim 21:
Garg teaches the following limitations:
wherein the processor is configured to, based on the permissions information, assign each user of the plurality of users to one of a plurality of predefined hierarchical roles, each predefined hierarchical role defining a corresponding scope of authority (Par. [0061]-[0067], Par. [0070]). Garg teaches assigning users to primary/secondary users, such as a business owner and an employee.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Garg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindemulder et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0232609 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lindemulder”.
Regarding Claim 5:
Lindemulder teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to send an authentication request to the first user device or the second user device and receive an authentication response to provide access to an application through the user interface (Par. [0052]). Lindemulder teaches users accessing an application for funds transfers through login.
wherein the user interface is configured to receive input from the first user or the second user (Par. [0052]). Lindemulder teaches an interface receiving a password for login.
Fasching/Garg teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers, but does not explicitly teach user login. Lindemulder however teaches that a service/application can require a user to login with their password. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the user login of Lindemulder to gain the predictable result of authenticating a user for access to the web services application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user login of Lindemulder is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards funds transfer systems, and that such a user login would gain the predictable result of requiring a user authentication/input.
Regarding Claim 6:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
wherein the application is configured to allow the first user device or the second user device to access the user information, the account information (Par. [0061], Par. [0064]). Fasching teaches users modifying their user/account information.
(taught by Garg below)
Garg teaches the following limitation:
and the permissions information (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching such that the second user device modifies permissions information.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claims 1 and 5 above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Garg teaches the following limitation:
wherein the application is configured to allow the second user device to update the user information, the account information, or the permissions information (Par. [0062]-[0064]).
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claims 1 and 5 above.
Claims 8, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Garg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hecht et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0095744 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Hecht”.
Regarding Claim 8:
Hecht teaches the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to send the transfer request to a fraud monitoring application (Par. [0025], Par. [0045], Par. [0046], Par. [0106]). Hecht teaches fraud monitoring for transactions which can be implemented with software.
and receive a response from the fraud monitoring application providing a notification on the second user device of a detected fraudulent activity (Par. [0025], Par. [0045], Par. [0046], Par. [0082], Par. [0083], Par. [0106]). Hecht further teaches that such fraud monitoring can warn a sender or recipient for further review, i.e. including a second user device.
Fasching/Garg teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers, but does not explicitly teach a fraud monitoring application. Hecht however teaches that a transaction can be sent for fraud monitoring analysis, and this monitoring has the benefit of improving security by mitigating fraud (Par. [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the fraud monitoring of Hecht to gain the benefit of fraud mitigation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fraud monitoring of Hecht is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards funds transfer systems, and that such a fraud monitoring would gain the benefit of improved security against fraud by mitigating fraud for transactions.
Regarding Claim 10:
Hecht teaches the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically approve or disapprove the transfer request based on a machine learning model trained on previous transfer data (Par. [0025], Par. [0045], Par. [0046], Par. [0056], Par. [0061], Par. [0068], Par. [0082], Par. [0083]). Hecht teaches that fraud monitoring for transactions can be used to automatically block transactions, and this can be done using machine learning trained on transactions.
Fasching/Garg teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers, but does not explicitly teach blocking using machine learning. Hecht however teaches that a transaction can be sent for fraud monitoring analysis, and this monitoring can block fraudulent transactions and has the benefit of improving security by mitigating fraud (Par. [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the fraud monitoring of Hecht to gain the benefit of fraud mitigation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fraud monitoring of Hecht is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards funds transfer systems, and that such a fraud monitoring would gain the benefit of improved security against fraud by mitigating fraud for transactions.
Regarding Claim 14:
Garg teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to send a permissions change request (Par. [0062]-[0064]). Previously, Garg was combined with Fasching such that permissions for users can be modified.
(taught by Hecht below)
Hecht teaches the following limitations:
to a fraud monitoring application and receive a response from the fraud monitoring application informing the second user of a detected fraudulent activity (Par. [0045], Par. [0046], Par. [0050], Par. [0082], Par. [0083], Par. [0084]). Hecht further teaches that general user actions can also be sent for fraud monitoring, and this can trigger warnings and fraud detection information to be sent to entities.
Fasching/Garg teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers including changing permissions, but does not explicitly teach fraud monitoring for changing permissions. Hecht however teaches that general user actions funds transfer systems can be sent for fraud monitoring analysis, and this monitoring has the benefit of improving security by mitigating fraud (Par. [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the fraud monitoring of Hecht to gain the benefit of fraud mitigation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fraud monitoring of Hecht is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards funds transfer systems, and that such a fraud monitoring would gain the benefit of improved security against fraud by mitigating fraud for transactions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Garg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Alfraih et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0064060 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Alfraih”.
Regarding Claim 11:
Alfraih teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to approve or disapprove a request for a permission change associated with the permissions information based on a machine learning model trained on previous permissions information (Par. [0015], Par. [0018], Par. [0022], Par. [0024], Par. [0033]). Alfraih teaches that authentication data/rule changes can be monitored and verified for whether the changes are unauthorized, and quarantining such changes using a machine learning model.
Fasching/Garg teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers, but does not explicitly teach approving/disapproving permission changes using machine learning. Alfraih however teaches that a authentication/rule changes can be monitored and verified, and this monitoring has the benefit of improving security by preventing undesired changes (Par. [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the monitoring of Alfraih to gain the benefit of additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the monitoring of Alfraih is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards systems regarding changes in access permissions, and that such monitoring and verification would gain the benefit of improved security by preventing unauthorized changes in access permissions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Garg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0012203 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Hall”.
Regarding Claim 17:
Hall teaches the following limitation:
wherein the second user device is configured to receive a plurality of transfer requests simultaneously and allow the second user select the plurality of transfer requests to approve (Par. [0032]). Hall teaches that pending transactions can be listed out for which the payee can select payments to accept.
Fasching/Garg teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers, but does not explicitly teach a list of transfer requests to select to approve. Hall however teaches that a system for funds transfers can have multiple pending transactions which the payee may select to approve with multiple options, and this has the benefit of respecting payee rights (Par. [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the pending transaction list of Hall to gain the benefit of respecting payee rights. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pending transaction list of Hall is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards funds transfer systems, and that using such a pending transaction list would gain the benefit of respecting payee rights by complying with governmental regulations.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching in view of Garg, and further in view of Lindstrom et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0016046 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lindstrom”.
Regarding Claim 19:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
A system for integrating a plurality of disparate electronic accounts comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations to (Par. [0033], Par. [0034], Par. [0038], Par. [0040]).
access, from at least one database, user information for a plurality of users in a group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]).
access, from the at least one database, account information for the plurality of disparate electronic accounts associated with the group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]).
integrate the user information and the account information into an application accessed through a user interface associated with a central entitlements engine (Par. [0014], Par. [0027], Par. [0049], Par. [0053]).
access, from the at least one database, permissions information (Par. [0046], Par. [0053], Par. [0094], Par. [0095])
(taught by Garg below)
(taught by Lindstrom below)
(taught by Garg below)
(taught by Garg below)
Garg teaches the following limitations:
including hierarchical permission levels for the plurality of users with respect to the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0061]-[0067]).
based on the hierarchical permission levels (Par. [0061]-[0067]).
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by a second user of the plurality of users, the second user having a higher permission level than a first user of the plurality of users to grant, restrict, or revoke an authority of the first user to initiate or approve a transfer involving at least one of the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0061]-[0067]). Previously, Garg was shown to teach the primary user modifying permissions of the secondary user in the context of financial scenarios including banking, and this can be considered an ability grant/restrict/revoke authorities for transfers in combination with Fasching above.
Fasching teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not hierarchical permission levels and modification. Garg however teaches that an entitlements engine can have an administrator define access permissions for secondary users and this can be done in the context of funds transfers (Par. [0062]-[0064]) and in a granular way on a per-user basis (Par. [0003]-[0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching with the entitlements engine of Garg in order to gain the benefit of greater access control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the entitlements engine of Garg is compatible with the system of Fasching as both are directed towards funds transfer systems with user permissions, and that the entitlements engine of Garg would provide the benefit of finer access control by allowing an administrator to define permissions of secondary users on a per-user basis.
Lindstrom teaches the following limitation:
and display, on the user interface, the account information and the user information (Par. [0029], Par. [0031], Par. [0051]). Lindstrom teaches displaying user/account information if a user can authenticate themselves, i.e. permitted access to a service under the broadest reasonable information, and this can be broadly interpreted to be associated with the permissions information since the permissions information relates to user account information.
Fasching/Garg teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not explicitly teach displaying user/account information. Lindstrom however teaches that user/account information can be displayed to a user if they can successfully login to a service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the user login of Lindstrom in order to gain the predictable result of displaying user/account information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user login of Lindstrom is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards services for funds transfers, and that such a user login would gain the predictable result of displaying user/account information on login.
Regarding Claim 20:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
A method for integrating a plurality of disparate electronic accounts comprising (Par. [0033], Par. [0034], Par. [0038], Par. [0040]).
accessing, from at least one database, user information for a plurality of users in a group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]).
accessing, from the at least one database, account information for the plurality of disparate electronic accounts associated with the group (Par. [0023], Par. [0053], Par. [0063], Par. [0064], Par. [0070]).
integrating the user information and the account information into an application accessed by a through a user interface associated with a central entitlements engine (Par. [0014], Par. [0027], Par. [0049], Par. [0053]).
accessing, from the at least one database, permissions information (Par. [0046], Par. [0053], Par. [0094], Par. [0095]).
(taught by Garg below)
(taught by Lindstrom below)
(taught by Garg below)
(taught by Garg below)
Garg teaches the following limitations:
including hierarchical permission levels for the plurality of users with respect to the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0061]-[0067]).
based on the hierarchical permission levels (Par. [0061]-[0067]).
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by a second user of the plurality of users, the second user having a higher permission level than a first user of the plurality of users to grant, restrict, or revoke an authority of the first user to initiate or approve a transfer involving at least one of the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0061]-[0067]). Previously, Garg was shown to teach the primary user modifying permissions of the secondary user in the context of financial scenarios including banking, and this can be considered an ability grant/restrict/revoke authorities for transfers in combination with Fasching above.
Fasching teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not hierarchical permission levels and modification. Garg however teaches that an entitlements engine can have an administrator define access permissions for secondary users and this can be done in the context of funds transfers (Par. [0062]-[0064]) and in a granular way on a per-user basis (Par. [0003]-[0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching with the entitlements engine of Garg in order to gain the benefit of greater access control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the entitlements engine of Garg is compatible with the system of Fasching as both are directed towards funds transfer systems with user permissions, and that the entitlements engine of Garg would provide the benefit of finer access control by allowing an administrator to define permissions of secondary users on a per-user basis.
Lindstrom teaches the following limitation:
and display, on the user interface, the account information and the user information (Par. [0029], Par. [0031], Par. [0051]). Lindstrom teaches displaying user/account information if a user can authenticate themselves, i.e. permitted access to a service under the broadest reasonable information, and this can be broadly interpreted to be associated with the permissions information since the permissions information relates to user account information.
Fasching/Garg teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not explicitly teach displaying user/account information. Lindstrom however teaches that user/account information can be displayed to a user if they can successfully login to a service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the user login of Lindstrom in order to gain the predictable result of displaying user/account information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user login of Lindstrom is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards services for funds transfers, and that such a user login would gain the predictable result of displaying user/account information on login.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Garg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Radman (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0337580 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Radman”.
Regarding Claim 22:
Radman teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically escalate the transfer request to a next higher hierarchical permission level when the first user and the second user lack authority to approve the transfer request ([0235]-[0240]). Radman teaches in a funds transfer system that some interactions are subject to legal/regulatory approval and escalate to such authorities.
Fasching/Garg teaches a funds transfer system with permissions/entitlements, but do not teach escalating a transfer to a higher authority. Radman however teaches that a funds transfer may require legal/regulatory approval and be escalated to such authorities (Par. [0235]-[0240]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the funds transfer system of Fasching/Garg with the escalation of Radman in order to gain the benefit of complying with legal regulations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the escalation of Radman is compatible with the system of Fasching/Garg as both are directed towards services for funds transfers, and that such an escalation would have the benefit of compliance with legal regulations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Gholap et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0209402 A1) – Includes methods regarding agentic artificial intelligence
Shah et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0200441 A1) – Includes methods regarding artificial intelligence for prior authorization
Davis (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0061526 A1) – Includes methods regarding using artificial intelligence for legal document creation
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 ETHAN V VO whose telephone number is (571)272-2505. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/E.V.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2431 /TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights