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
The following is in response to the Election filed 6/9/2026 and the application filed 12/20/2024 with priority to provisional application filed 12/20/2023.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending. Claims 1-10 have been withdrawn as directed to a non- elected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden . This is not found persuasive because each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search by the separate classification thereof.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions Group I and Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 11-19 are directed to a product. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter).
The Examiner has identified independent Claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
The claims recite establish…a connection with a first bank-as-biller account associated with a financial institution different than that of the banking …using a…banking identifier associated with the first bank-as-biller account, wherein the first bank-as-biller account has a first biller identifier for…payment to the first bank-as-biller account; establish…a connection with a second bank-as-biller account associated with a financial institution different than that of the banking …using a second…banking identifier associated with the second bank-as-biller account, wherein the second bank-as-biller account has a second biller identifier for … payment to the second bank-as-biller account; provide a first autopayment feature, wherein the instructions to provide the first autopayment feature direct the …system to: obtain, on a current day, at the banking … via the connection with the first bank-as-biller account, a first current balance for the first bank-as-biller account that reflects an actual balance including after any transactions posted for the first bank-as-biller account for the current day; determine an amount to pay towards the first current balance for the first bank-as-biller account based on the first current balance; and direct payment of the amount to pay towards the first current balance by performing an …payment using the first biller identifier associated with the first bank-as-biller account to effect the …payment for the first bank-as-biller account on the current day; and provide a second autopayment feature, wherein the instructions to provide the second autopayment feature direct the…system to: obtain, on the current day, at the banking … via the connection with the second bank-as-biller account, a second current balance for the second bank-as-biller account that reflects an actual account balance including after any transactions posted for the second bank-as-biller account for the current day, wherein the second current balance is for a term loan; determine that the second current balance is zero; and based on determining that the second current balance is zero, cancel an autopayment associated with the second bank-as-biller account.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites the series of steps instructing how to make a payment which is a fundamental economic practice and thus falls within the abstract grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to make a payment in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (an application, open banking, electronic payment) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic process (manually setting up autopayments for bills/repayment). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to set up rules for making a payment in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, these additional claim elements (an application, open banking, electronic payment) do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 12-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 11 ( specifically, instructions for determining rules in an autopayment financial system). The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered as a whole, individually and as an ordered combination. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Thus, the claims 11-19 are not patent-eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiman et al. (US 2024/046270 Hilt et al. (US 5,465,206 A) in view of Kassab et al. ("Open Banking: What It Is, Where It’s at, and Where It’s Going," Jan 2022, Computer, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 53-63).
Specifically as to claim 11, Maiman et al. disclose a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that when executed by a computing system direct the computing system to:
establish, at a banking application (See Maiman et al. para 46 application, para 20 use APIs), a connection with a first bank-as-biller account associated with a financial institution different than that of the banking application wherein the first bank-as-biller account has a first biller for electronic payment to the first bank-as-biller account (see para Maiman et al. para 65 rules , para 13 and 19 bank account different than financial institution);
establish, at the banking application, a connection with a second bank-as-biller account associated with a financial institution different than that of the banking application using a second open banking identifier associated with the second bank-as-biller account, wherein the second bank-as-biller account has a second biller identifier for electronic payment to the second bank-as-biller account (see Maiman et al para second merchant (biller) and credentials para 19);
provide a first autopayment feature, wherein the instructions to provide the first autopayment feature direct the computing system to:
obtain, on a current day, at the banking application via the connection with the first bank-as-biller account, a first current balance for the first bank-as-biller account that reflects an actual balance including after any transactions posted for the first bank-as-biller account for the current day (see Maiman et al. para 13 “he automatic payments may be linked to a bank account (e.g., a debit, checking, or savings account) from which funds are withdrawn or otherwise deducted);
determine an amount to pay towards the first current balance for the first bank-as-biller account based on the first current balance (see Maiman et al. figure 1); and
direct payment of the amount to pay towards the first current balance by performing an electronic payment using the first biller identifier associated with the first bank-as-biller account to effect the electronic payment for the first bank-as-biller account on the current day (see Maiman et al. para 20 “he automatic payment requests may be received prior to a scheduled date when money is to be withdrawn from or charged to the main account linked to the automatic payment requests and/or may be received on the date when money is to be withdrawn from or charged to the main account linked to the automatic payment requests”); and
provide a second autopayment feature, wherein the instructions to provide the second autopayment feature direct the computing system (see Maiman et al. para 3 and 19 second separate bank biller) to:
obtain, on the current day, at the banking application via the connection with the second bank-as-biller account, a second current balance for the second bank-as-biller account that reflects an actual account balance including after any transactions posted for the second bank-as-biller account for the current day(see para 19 secondary banks, see para 17 and 22 loan installment autopayment), wherein the second current balance is for a term loan (see Maiman et al. para 22, “loan”);
determine that the second current balance is zero (see para 38, determining balances, rules and threshold with Machine learning); and
based on determining that the second current balance is zero, cancel an autopayment associated with the second bank-as-biller account See Maiman et al. para 61 “cause a value or balance of the linked account to fail to satisfy a threshold …causing a credit balance to exceed a credit limit or other threshold, or the like” is within the scope of term loan balance as zero is the threshold and cancel payment) but does not specifically disclose a term loan, using an open banking identifier and unique identifiers.
Hilt et al. disclose a financial system for auto electronic bill pay with unique identifiers assigned by the payment network operator to each participating biller (see Hilt et al. col. 12 lines 40-47 “(2) FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a bill pay system 100 in which consumers pay billers through a payment network which forms a backbone for funds clearing and settlement. System 100 is enabled in part by unique identifiers assigned by the payment network operator to each participating biller, and by the adherence of the participants to pre-agreed protocols”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the automatic payment system of Maimon et al. the ability to provide unique identifiers to the billers as taught by Hilt et al. since uniquely identifying the billers provides for security and accuracy in a multiple automatic payment system. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done.
Kassab et al. disclose a financial system using open banking to access multiple bill payer accounts and financial accounts in one application securely (including term loans) (see Kassab et al. page 54 column 2 “Customers usually interact with more than one financial institution. Customers include individuals and small, midsize, and large businesses, each with unique needs… banks support linked services, that is, apps, websites, and services that can share information through the online accounts dashboard. These services can incorporate views of balances from other bank accounts for use in budgeting and with other linked personal finance products” see also page 54 col 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the automatic payment system of Maimon et al. the ability to provide open banking as taught by Kassab et al. since moving funds among financial institutions is not always easy and not transparent and members of a household juggle multiple payment accounts and bills making it difficult to keep up with different institutions. Open banking allows the sources of income from different sources and all of the recurring expenses to be displayed on one or more dashboards providing status, alerts for payment, and seamless access to funds from any source, including consolidated account overdraft protection and enables optimization of payment scheduling (to reduce interest charges) movement of money among revenue-generating accounts, and uniquely identifying the billers provides for security and accuracy in a multiple automatic payment system (see Kassab et al. page 56 col 3 to page 57 column 1).
Specifically as to claim 12, wherein the first current balance includes a first current statement balance for the first bank-as-biller account reflecting any credits to the first bank-as-biller account (see Maiman et al. para 22 “increase (e.g., based on regular payroll deposits)”).
Specifically as to claim 13, provide an autopayment rule to pay the first current statement balance; and wherein the instructions to determine the amount to pay towards the first current balance further direct the computing system to determine, based on the autopayment rule, that the amount to pay towards the first current balance is the first current statement balance (see Maiman et al. para 35, ML rules for autopayments).
Specifically as to claim 14, provide an autopayment rule to pay a minimum amount due; obtain, on the current day, at the banking application via the connection with the first bank-as-biller account, a current minimum amount due associated with the first current statement balance; wherein the instructions to determine the amount to pay towards the first current balance further direct the computing system to determine, based on the autopayment rule, that the amount to pay towards the first current balance is the current minimum amount due (see Maiman et al. para 34 “determine relative priorities among different automatic payment requests when an aggregate amount associated with the automatic payment requests would cause an available balance in a linked account to fail to satisfy a threshold… determine whether to direct an automatic payment to the linked account, re-route the automatic payment to an alternative account, or delay the automatic payment until the available balance in the linked account has increased. Additionally, or alternatively, the trained machine learning model 225 may be used to select, among multiple alternative accounts, a suitable alternative account to which to re-route an automatic payment (e.g., re-routing an ACH-only automatic payment to an alternative bank account that supports ACH transfer rather than a credit card account).”).
Specifically as to claim 15, provide an autopayment rule to pay a particular fixed amount; provide a first autopayment adjustment rule associated with the autopayment rule to pay the first current statement balance instead of the particular fixed amount if the first current statement balance is less than the particular fixed amount; and wherein the instructions to determine the amount to pay towards the first current balance further direct the computing system to: determine that the first current statement balance is less than the particular fixed amount; and determine, based on the first autopayment adjustment rule, that the amount to pay towards the first current balance is the first current statement balance (see Maiman et al. para 34 “determine whether to direct an automatic payment to the linked account, re-route the automatic payment to an alternative account, or delay the automatic payment until the available balance in the linked account has increased. Additionally, or alternatively, the trained machine learning model 225 may be used to select, among multiple alternative accounts, a suitable alternative account to which to re-route an automatic payment (e.g., re-routing an ACH-only automatic payment to an alternative bank account that supports ACH transfer rather than a credit card account).” Para 18 and 25 for rules for transactions and autopayments)..
Specifically as to claim 16, provide a second autopayment adjustment rule associated with the autopayment rule and the first autopayment adjustment rule to pay the particular fixed amount even if the first current statement balance is less than the particular fixed amount if there is a remaining account balance associated with the first bank-as-biller account greater than zero; and wherein the instructions to determine the amount to pay towards the first current balance further direct the computing system to: determine that the first account balance is greater than zero; and determine, based on the second autopayment adjustment rule, that the amount to pay towards the first current balance is the particular fixed amount (see Maiman et al. para 25 “the automatic payment system may issue, to a transaction backend system (e.g., via an API), a payment instruction associated with each automatic payment request. For example, the payment instruction may indicate that an automatic payment is to be processed using the main account linked to the automatic payment when the aggregate amount of all automatic payments can be deducted from or charged to the linked account without the available balance failing to satisfy the applicable threshold (e.g., falling below a minimum balance on a bank account or exceeding a maximum balance on a credit card account). Additionally, or alternatively, the payment instruction may indicate that an automatic payment is to be processed using the main account linked to the automatic payment in cases where the automatic payment is ineligible to be re-routed to an alternative account (e.g., where the automatic payment has be paid via ACH transfer and the linked account, but none of the alternative accounts, support ACH transfer) and/or where the automatic payment has a higher priority (e.g., based on criticality, penalty avoidance, interest, fees, consumption data, or other factors). Alternatively, the payment instruction may indicate that one or more automatic payments are to be processed using one or more of the alternative accounts designated by the user when deducting or charging the aggregate amount of all automatic payments to the linked account would cause the available balance to fail to satisfy the applicable threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the payment instruction may indicate that one or more automatic payments are to be delayed or held until the main account linked to the automatic payment has a larger available balance (e.g., following a payroll deposit, a tax refund deposit, a scheduled credit card payment, or the like) and then deducted from or charged to the linked account.”).
Specifically as to claims 17, receive an electronic bill (e-bill) at the banking application, wherein the e-bill comprises a total statement balance, wherein the total statement balance of the e-bill is different than the first current balance obtained, on the current day, at the banking application via the connection with the bank-as-biller account (see Maiman et al. para 24 and 25 autopayment rules “the automatic payment system may issue, to a transaction backend system (e.g., via an API), a payment instruction associated with each automatic payment request. For example, the payment instruction may indicate that an automatic payment is to be processed using the main account linked to the automatic payment when the aggregate amount of all automatic payments can be deducted from or charged to the linked account without the available balance failing to satisfy the applicable threshold (e.g., falling below a minimum balance on a bank account or exceeding a maximum balance on a credit card account). Additionally, or alternatively, the payment instruction may indicate that an automatic payment is to be processed using the main account linked to the automatic payment in cases where the automatic payment is ineligible to be re-routed to an alternative account (e.g., where the automatic payment has be paid via ACH transfer and the linked account, but none of the alternative accounts, support ACH transfer) and/or where the automatic payment has a higher priority (e.g., based on criticality, penalty avoidance, interest, fees, consumption data, or other factors). Alternatively, the payment instruction may indicate that one or more automatic payments are to be processed using one or more of the alternative accounts designated by the user when deducting or charging the aggregate amount of all automatic payments to the linked account would cause the available balance to fail to satisfy the applicable threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the payment instruction may indicate that one or more automatic payments are to be delayed or held until the main account linked to the automatic payment has a larger available balance (e.g., following a payroll deposit, a tax refund deposit, a scheduled credit card payment, or the like) and then deducted from or charged to the linked account.” And para 65).
Specifically as to claim 18, provide a notification that the autopayment has been cancelled (see Maiman et al. para 64 “the automatic payment system may determine that the monthly mortgage bill is ineligible to be routed to an alternative account “ and figure 5).
Specifically as to claim 19, wherein the notification indicates that the term loan has matured ( machine learning model adjusts for determining different payment scenarios including balance, see terms in para 25 of Maiman et al. and machine learning rules in para 65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. CN 117876176A disclose a digital intelligence community integrated service platform for bank.
Agrawal et al. WO201898517A1 disclose of transferring data between a plurality of computing devices, wherein the computing devices process the data before and/or after transferring, and the processing affects said transfer of data. The system receives first data from a client system, second data from a billing system, and third data from a credit system via a data network, wherein the first data comprises a first identifier, the second data comprises a second identifier, and the third data comprises a third identifier; generate first transfer data in dependence on a comparison of the first identifier and the second identifier; generate second transfer data in dependence on a comparison of the first identifier and the third identifier; and dynamically generate instructions to distribute data between a plurality of accounts in dependence on the first and second transfer data.
Hedaoo et al.(US 2024/0062185A1) disclose a system for continuous availability of up to date account information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights