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 .
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Regarding the Applicant’s invention, the specification states that the invention is directed towards solving hierarchical access control for management of financial accounts such as by assigning different privilege levels (Par. [0003], Par. [0004]). It is recommended by the Examiner to incorporate this concept of hierarchical access control by positively reciting such aspects in the claims in order to overcome the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a delegation form to be completed automatically using a machine learning model” in lines 1-2 of Claim 12. The phrase “to be completed” suggests intended usage which carries little patentable weight. It is recommended by the Examiner to amend the claim to positively recite the aspects of the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites “the second user may select the plurality of transfer requests to approve” in lines 2-3 of Claim 17. The word “may” suggests intended usage which carries little patentable weight. It is recommended by the Examiner to amend the claim to positively recite the aspects of the claimed limitation.
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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "receiving the request" in line 1 of Claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends upon Claim 11 which recites “a request for a permission change” and depends upon Claim 1 which recites “a transfer request”. For this reason, “the request” lacks antecedent basis as there is more than one request, making it unclear as to which request is being referred to, rendering the claim indefinite.
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 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 Patel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0193613 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Patel”.
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.
access, from the at least one database, permissions information associated with the user information and the account 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.
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 Patel below)
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by input from the second user device (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Patel teaches privacy settings that a recipient can use to block a sender.
Fasching teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not explicitly teach user modification of this blacklist. Patel however teaches that a recipient can block a user through their privacy settings in a funds transfer system (Par. [0018]). 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 user blocking of Patel in order to gain the benefit of user privacy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user blocking of Patel is compatible with the system of Fasching as both are directed towards funds transfer systems with user blacklisting, and that the user blocking of Patel would provide the benefit of additional privacy by preventing undesired communication from blocked users.
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:
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the second user device is configured to approve transfers for the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel was combined with Fasching in such a manner that the user blocking of Patel from the second user device was added. Since this blocking was from the second user device, this can be considered to be the second user device approving transfers under the broadest reasonable interpretation, since approval is affected by the blocking from the second user device. Furthermore, the phrase “transfers for the plurality of disparate electronic accounts” suggests a type of intended usage, and it is recommended by the Examiner to clarify and positively recite in what way these transfers are “for” the plurality of disparate electronic accounts.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Patel 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. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel was combined with Fasching such that the second user device has privacy settings for blocking users, 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:
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is updated to remove, by the second user, an access permission associated with the first user (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel was combined with Fasching such that the second user device can block the first user, i.e. remove access permission of the first user to make a transaction with the second user.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the central entitlements engine provides an account update for each of the plurality of disparate electronic accounts for the group and the user interface displays the account updates (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel 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 privacy security settings.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Fasching teaches the following limitation:
further comprising receiving, 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 Patel below)
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by input from the third user device (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel was combined with Fasching such that the second user can block 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]).
accessing, from the at least one database, permissions information associated with the user information and the account 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]).
sending, based on the permissions information, the transfer request to a second user device associated with a 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 Patel below)
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by input from the second user device (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]).
Fasching teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not explicitly teach user modification of this blacklist. Patel however teaches that a recipient can block a user through their privacy settings in a funds transfer system (Par. [0018]). 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 user blocking of Patel in order to gain the benefit of user privacy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user blocking of Patel is compatible with the system of Fasching as both are directed towards funds transfer system with user blacklisting, and that the user blocking of Patel would provide the benefit of additional privacy by preventing undesired communication from blocked users.
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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 Patel below)
Patel teaches the following limitation:
and the permissions information (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel 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:
Patel 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. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel 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.
Claims 8, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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:
Patel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to send a permissions change request (Par. [0018], Par. [0021]). Previously, Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Patel/Alfraih as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0325639 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Hori”.
Regarding Claim 12:
Hori teaches the following limitation:
wherein receiving the request initiates a delegation form to be completed automatically using a machine learning model (Par. [0119], Par. [0120]). Hori teaches that changes to a user policy can require a supervisor password, i.e. a form/field to be completed regarding delegation in combination with the permission modification of Fasching/Patel/Alfraih. This teaches the claimed limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation since the phrase “to be completed automatically using a machine learning model” carries little patentable weight.
Fasching/Patel/Alfraih teaches a centralized web services system for funds transfers including changing permissions, but does not explicitly teach initiating a delegation form. Hori however teaches that changes to user policies can require a supervisor password, i.e. a delegation form under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and this improves security by avoiding threats from single password usage (Par. [0005]). 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/Patel/Alfraih with the supervisor password of Hori to gain the benefit of additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the supervisor password of Hori is compatible with the system of Fasching/Patel/Alfraih as both are directed towards changes in user policies as Fasching/Patel/Alfraih were combined to modify user permissions, and that such a supervisor password would gain the benefit of improved security by requiring another step of verification.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasching/Patel 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 device receives a plurality of transfer requests simultaneously and the second user may 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/Patel 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/Patel 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/Patel 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 Lindstrom et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0016046 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lindstrom”, and further in view of Tomoda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0264001 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Tomoda”.
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 by a device with a user interface (Par. [0014], Par. [0027], Par. [0049], Par. [0053]).
access, from the at least one database, permissions information associated with the account information and the user information (Par. [0046], Par. [0053], Par. [0094], Par. [0095])
(taught by Lindstrom below)
(taught by Tomoda below)
Lindstrom teaches the following limitation:
and display the account information and the user information on the user interface when a first user possesses access permissions associated with the permissions 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 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 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 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.
Tomoda teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by a second user to allow the first user to make a transfer to or from an electronic account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0083]). Tomoda teaches that a system administrator can place a user/account into a blacklist.
Fasching/Lindstrom teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not explicitly teach a second user modifying this blacklist. Tomoda however teaches that a system administrator can manually modify a blacklist. 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/Lindstrom with the system administrator of Tomoda in order to gain the predictable result of a second user being able to modify permissions of a first user to make a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system administrator of Tomoda is compatible with the system of Fasching/Lindstrom as both are directed towards blacklisting users for fraud, and that such a system administrator manually adding users to a blacklist would gain the predictable result of the user not being able to make transfers due to being blacklisted.
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 device with a user interface (Par. [0014], Par. [0027], Par. [0049], Par. [0053]).
accessing, from the at least one database, permissions information associated with the account information and the user information (Par. [0046], Par. [0053], Par. [0094], Par. [0095]).
(taught by Lindstrom below)
(taught by Tomoda below)
Lindstrom teaches the following limitation:
and displaying the account information and the user information on the user interface when a first user possesses access permissions associated with the permissions information (Par. [0029], Par. [0031], Par. [0051]).
Fasching 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 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 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.
Tomoda teaches the following limitation:
wherein the permissions information is modifiable by a second user to allow the first user to make a transfer to or from an electronic account in the plurality of disparate electronic accounts (Par. [0083]).
Fasching/Lindstrom teaches a funds transfer system in which a blacklist is maintained, but does not explicitly teach a second user modifying this blacklist. Tomoda however teaches that a system administrator can manually modify a blacklist. 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/Lindstrom with the system administrator of Tomoda in order to gain the predictable result of a second user being able to modify permissions of a first user to make a transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system administrator of Tomoda is compatible with the system of Fasching/Lindstrom as both are directed towards blacklisting users for fraud, and that such a system administrator manually adding users to a blacklist would gain the predictable result of the user not being able to make transfers due to being blacklisted.
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:
Rajurkar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0148013 A1) – Includes methods regarding online payment transactions
Priebatsch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0363774 A1) – Includes methods regarding permissions management
Conclusion
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 /LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431