DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in this instant application per original claims filed on 01/16/2025 and followed by a preliminary amendment on 04/11/2025 by Applicant. Claim 1 is the only independent methos claim, with Claims 2-10 are respective dependent claims. Said preliminary amendment of 04/11/2025 amended original Claims 1-2 and added New Claims 3-10.
No IDS has been filed by the Applicant so far.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection on merits in response to the preliminary amendment filed by the Applicant on 11 APRIL 2025 for its original application of 16 JANUARY 2025 that is titled: “MAPPING CONSUMER OWNERSHIP OF FINANCIAL ASSETS TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCALITIES AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS THEREOF”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-10 are now being rejected herein.
Claim Objections
Dependent Claims 5 & 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
First Claim 5 recited in lines 9-10 on Page 3 of the claims listing of 04/11/2025 will be left “as-is”.
Second Claim 5 recited in lines 12-14 on Page 3 of the claims listing of 04/11/2025 will be changed to “Claim 6” for proper numbering of the claims, and that is how it has been considered in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 7-8 are 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention. Examiner notes the following rejections ---
Dependent Claim 7, line 3 recites a limitation “the shareholder meeting” that is unclear and/or indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to “a shareholder meeting”, or a similar modification of the Applicant’s own choice.
Dependent Claim 8, line 2 recites a limitation “a shareholder forum” that is unclear and/or indefinite. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in Claim 7, which recites the exact same limitation and both Claims 7 & 8 depend from Claim 6 directly.
Dependent Claim 8, lines 2-3 recite a limitation “the shareholder meeting” that is unclear and/or indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing said limitation to “a shareholder meeting”, or a similar modification of the Applicant’s own choice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office Action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and ap1roved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 of the instant application (19/025645) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,825,093 (parent application no. 15/872794), as shown in Comparison Table of method Claims 1 and 9 respectively, as exemplary analysis, for both applications are copied below.
TABLE: Method Claims Comparison between 19/025645 and 15/872794
Child ASN 19/025645
(claims listing of 04/11/2025)
Parent ASN 15/872794
Allowed as US Patent 10.825,093
(claims listing of 04/09/2020)
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a [[
wherein the electronic Tender voting request identifies at least the following:
i) at least one security of at least one issuer, and
ii) a [[
iii) at least one condition of the at least one [[
[[
[[
[[one or more accounts associated with ownership [[ based on the electronic voting request;
generating, by the [[account of the one or more accounts;
[[
[[
transmitting, by the [[
wherein the [[
receiving, by the [[
[[[[an interface configured to allow [[each account to submit the [[
[[
recording, [[one or more accounts as submitted [[
dynamically outputting, by the [[
9. Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
periodically receiving, by a specifically programed processing computer system, financial data from a plurality of financial-related entities related to a plurality of financial assets from a plurality of source systems in a plurality of data formats,
wherein the receiving the financial data during a particular time period results in an amount of the financial data that requires to split the financial data into a plurality of subparts to process the subparts of the financial data in parallel, hereby allowing to process the financial data received at the particular time period before a receipt of new financial data during a subsequent time period,
wherein the financial data comprises a plurality of the following data:
i) financial assets data, wherein the financial assets data comprises at least the following data for each financial asset:
1) a unique identifier that uniquely identifies such financial asset in a financial industry,
2) a record date of such financial asset, wherein the record date is a date on which owners of such financial asset to be identified,
3) an issuer name of such financial asset, and
4) a value or an amount of such financial asset that has been publicly distributed,
ii) customer financial data, wherein the customer financial data comprises at least one of the following data:
1) customer account data of a plurality of customers of the plurality of financial-related entities,
2) customer prospectus data of the plurality of customers of the plurality of financial-related entities, and
3) customer trade confirmation data of the plurality of customers of the plurality of financial-related entities, and
iii) financial asset ownership data from issuers of the plurality of financial assets; consolidating, by the specifically programed processing computer system, the financial data from the plurality of financial-related entities into a consolidated financial data stored in at least one database file based on at least one standardized data format; analyzing, by the specifically programed processing computer system, each record of the consolidated financial data with at least one address-matching program; based on the analyzing with the at least one address-matching program, associating, by the specifically programed processing computer system, each record of the consolidated financial data with a respective eleven digit postal code to result in an address-enriched consolidated financial data;
receiving, by the specifically programed processing computer system, credit demographic data and lifestyle data for each for at least the plurality of customers of the plurality of financial related entities;
splitting, by the specifically programed processing computer system, the address-enriched consolidated financial data into a plurality of subparts, allowing the specifically programed processing computer system to process the plurality of subparts of the address-enriched consolidated financial data in parallel;
aggregating, by the specifically programed processing computer system, the credit demographic data and the lifestyle data with the address-enriched consolidated financial data for at least a portion of the plurality of customers of the plurality of financial-related entities;
after the aggregating, anonymizing, by the specifically programed processing computer system, the address-enriched consolidated financial data using an anonymous relevant format to form an anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data; and
linking, by the specifically programed processing computer system, information of the anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data across a plurality data relationship to form a consolidated household view of the anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data for each respective eleven digit postal code.
The above comparison table is also attached herewith as Appendix in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of receiving, by a computer system, an electronic voting request to conduct at least one voting; wherein the electronic voting request identifies at least the following: i) at least one security of at least one issuer, ii) a deadline for the at least one voting to submit votes, and iii) at least one condition of the at least one voting; identifying, by the computer system, one or more accounts associated with ownership shares of the at least one issuer on the record date based on the electronic voting request; transmitting, by the computer system, a vote invitation to submit a vote in the at least one voting; wherein the vote invitation comprises the control number encoded within the vote invitation; generating, by the computer system, an interface configured to allow each account to submit the vote; recording, by the computer system, a plurality of votes of the one or more accounts as submitted votes; and dynamically outputting, by the computer system, at least one report identifying a progress of the at least one voting; and the Specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, because the Specification does not recite voting and/or vote/s.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by Applicant on 04/11/2025 as preliminary amendment are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 10 and 15 are independent system, method and computer program product claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: receiving an electronic voting request to conduct at least one voting; wherein the electronic voting request identifies at least the following: i) at least one security of at least one issuer, ii) a deadline for the at least one voting to submit votes, and iii) at least one condition of the at least one voting; identifying one or more accounts associated with ownership shares of the at least one issuer on the record date based on the electronic voting request; generating a control number for each account of the one or more accounts; transmitting a vote invitation to submit a vote in the at least one voting; wherein the vote invitation comprises the control number encoded within the vote invitation; receiving the control number from a respective employee; recording a plurality of votes of the one or more accounts as submitted votes; and dynamically outputting at least one report identifying a progress of the at least one voting. In other words, the present invention relates to determining consumer ownership of financial assets per geographic locality(ies) and computer-implemented methods and computer systems utilized for the determination and application thereof (per Technical Field in para [0002] of Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a computer system with steps of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the computer system/ interface. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The method claim recites additional elements of: a computer system used to carry out steps of: receiving …; identifying …; generating …; transmitting …; receiving …; generating …; recording …; and dynamically outputting; as well as an interface as in an interface configured to allow each account to submit the vote. These additional elements of the computer system and interface in the steps are hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above may also be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these system and interface (processors) are anything other than generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including dependent method Claims 2-10, which further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the at least one report can be based on at least one of the following criteria: i) a security name, ii) a job number, iii) an election date, iv) an election time, v) a CUSIP, vi) at least one class, vii) an account number, viii) a number of shares, ix) a percentage tendered, x) a percentage not tendered, xi) Tendered shares, xii) the Tender control number, andmapping ownership of a financial asset to at least one geographic location based on an anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data; consolidating voting requests from a plurality of financial-related entities into a consolidated voting dataset; removing duplicate information from the consolidated voting dataset; calculating a total number of votes held per each geographic location at a predetermined period of time; permitting the account to access a shareholder forum prior to a start of a presentation of the shareholder meeting; permitting the account to access a shareholder forum after a presentation of the shareholder meeting has ended; wherein the receiving of the electronic voting request comprise periodic receipt of voting requests at predetermined periods of time; wherein the control number is a unique identifier that uniquely identifies a particular account associated with an individual; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1.
Therefore, said Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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. The 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references as described below for each claim/ limitation.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 04/11/2025 as preliminary amendment are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,237,717 issued to Rao et al. (hereinafter “Rao”) in view of Pub. No. US 2013/ 0103614 filed by Penzak, Jason (hereinafter “Penzak”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2012/ 0035531 filed by Push, Robert (hereinafter “Push”), and described below for each claim/ limitation.
Examiner notes that all claims have been copied as recited by the Applicant to keep them readable and whole, even if the limitations within a claim that are not taught explicitly by the primary/previous reference (are noted in parentheses), but these limitations are noted explicitly as taught by a secondary/new reference whenever a secondary/new reference has been used.
Examiner notes that, for brevity in this rejection, the motivation statement has not been repeated herein every time a secondary reference has been used.
With respect to Claim 1, Rao teaches ---
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, an electronic voting request to conduct at least one voting;
(see at least: Rao Abstract and Summary of the Invention in C3,~L6 to C6,~L20; and Abstract about {“An electronic voting system comprising of one or more intelligent fixed in place voting machines, mobile voting machines and one or more trusted servers connected by secure wired or wireless communication means to enable electronic voting. A secure system for electronic voting by means of dynamically reconfiguring the mobile device as a mobile voting machine, said mobile voting machine communicating voice and data information with one or more trusted election servers to enable electronic voting in real time by leveraging the processing power/ databases resident on the mobile device and or the processing power/databases resident on the trusted election servers. …”}; and C2,~L39-62 about {“……The memory cards are collected by the election officials and inserted into computers that then read the data from the cards. …”}; and C7,~L60 to C8,~L22 about {“…… The memory storage card, 103 is further used in reading the votes recorded on it by means of insertion into a separate computer. …”}; and C8,~L23-63 about {“…… a hard disk drive 202 for storage of voting data within the voting machine, a removable magnetic/memory card, 203 for storage of voting data that is subsequently read by a separate computer, an activation card reader 204, for enabling the voter to activate the voting machine by a card issued to the voter at the polling station…”}; and C9,~L57 to C10,~L3 about {“The present invention by extension and by inference extends to stationary devices or stationary voting machines, SVM, such as a personal computer but not limited to, the implementation of the desired and enabling features of the present invention with specific reference to the intelligent voting machine, IVM and the mobile voting machine, MVM for the purposes of electronic voting and other applications using the device by itself and or in conjunction with one or more trusted servers, escrow servers connected to the device by wired or wireless means. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’ and ‘to conduct … voting’)
Rao teaches ---
wherein the electronic voting request identifies at least the following:
i) at least one security of at least one issuer, [[
ii) a deadline for the at least one voting to submit votes, and
iii) at least one condition of the at least one voting;
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’ and ‘to conduct … voting’; and C4,~L28-36 about {“…said servers having one or more levels of trust and being maintained by designated election authorities, to execute the authentication, encryption, security, secure high speed communication, secure communication at other speeds, and other enabling features of mobile electronic voting.”}; and C5,~L39-43 about {“It is an object of the present invention to create an improved fixed in place touch screen enabled voting machine such that the voters have the option of going to the polling place and casting their votes or using the touch screen enabled mobile device to cast their votes.”}; and C13,~L59-67 about {“The foregoing examples illustrate the means for symbol driven electronic voting by one or more methods enabling the IVM and the MVM to dynamically perform the symbol driven voting actions by preset definition of the symbols by the election authorities and or personalization of the symbols by the voter;…… and means for secure wired or wireless communication.”}; and Claim 13 in C23,~L10-16 about {“13. A secure electronic voting system of claim 12, comprising means for eliminating disparities relative to information and time between an absentee ballot voter and a voter casting a ballot on the election day at a polling station, wherein the absentee ballot voter is provided with a deadline for casting the vote that is equivalent to the deadline provided to the voter casting the ballot at the polling station.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’)
[[
[[
Rao teaches ---
[[one or more accounts associated with ownership [[ based on the electronic voting request;
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; and C5,~L35-38 about {“It is an object of the invention to maintain valid voter rolls based on eligibility on a secure central server or servers and enable the dynamic validation of the request to cast the ballot by the voter.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘based on the electronic voting request’)
Rao teaches as disclosed above, but it may be argued that it may not explicitly disclose
about ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’. However, Penzak teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Penzak Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0005]-[0007]; and para [0040] about {“...... The client computer 24 is further configured to store data indicating dividend amounts in dividend accounts of stock share owners stored in the dividend account database 28. The client computer 24 is further configured to perform additional calculations as will be described in greater detail below and to store determined values in an internal memory device.”}; and para [0095] about {“.....The client computer 224 is further configured to store data indicating dividend amounts in dividend accounts of stock share owners stored in the dividend account database 228. The client computer 224 is further configured to store data indicating the number of the first plurality of stock shares 250, the second plurality of stock shares, and the third plurality of stock shares 260 in the database 230. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Penzak. The motivation to combine these references would be to enable the casting of votes in commercial applications using mobile devices such as voting on various proxy matters of a company and other applications (see C3,~L1-5 of Rao), and to provide an improved system and method for allocating dividends to a plurality of classes and sub-classes of shares that addresses the need for customized investment instruments (see para [0006] of Penzak).
Rao and Penzak teach ---
generating, by the [[account of the one or more accounts;
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’;)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
Rao and Penzak teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘control number’ for each account. However, Push teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Push Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0033]-[0039]; and para [0059] about {“All accounts 215, 225 are owned and controlled by each respective FCM investor. Although the customers do not actually own title in the shares in the Fund held in the FCM's customer account, the customers have a legal claim against the account, should the FCM default or commit wrongdoing.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘control number’ for each account per BRI rules)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the teachings of Rao and Penzak with the teachings of Push. The motivation to combine these references would be to enable the casting of votes in commercial applications using mobile devices such as voting on various proxy matters of a company and other applications (see C3,~L1-5 of Rao), and to provide an improved system and method for allocating dividends to a plurality of classes and sub-classes of shares that addresses the need for customized investment instruments (see para [0006] of Penzak), and to allow the large sums of money moving between individual clearing members and clearinghouses but in the aggregate, there is little daily change in the overall amount of funds and securities allocated to futures trading across the various exchanges (see para [0024] of Push).
[[
[[
Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
transmitting, by the [[
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; and C2,~L10-16 about {“...... In addition, the voters that speak minority languages are often intimidated by the process and tend to participate in the voting in elections at a lower participation level.”}; and C5,~L35-38 about {“It is an object of the invention to maintain valid voter rolls based on eligibility on a secure central server or servers and enable the dynamic validation of the request to cast the ballot by the voter.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
wherein the [[
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
receiving, by the [[
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account; and para [0021] about {“…… In practice, the clearing member rarely has the cash available to meet the cash margin requirement because they have invested their cash balances. This results in the clearing members account becoming overdrawn at the margin settlement bank. This arrangement has a number of inefficiencies. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a respective employee’ per BRI rules)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
[[an interface configured to allow [[each account to submit the [[
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’; and C14,~L58-62 about {“Example 6.3: The configuration of the IVM of the present art with a microphone and speaker provides the voter with the needed interface. In the case of the MVM, which is a mobile communication device in its original configuration, the microphone and speaker are already available.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an interface configured’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
[[
Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
recording, [[one or more accounts as submitted [[
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’; and Claim 1 about {“A secure system for electronic voting, comprising: a) an intelligent voting machine configured for communication, computation, command and control of information including one or more of audio, video, images, photos, graphics, text, speech, voice, data and information; …… including means for counting and tabulating the election results without identifying a particular voting machine or polling station, means for utilizing a plurality of intelligent voting machines, sequentially/ concurrently/in selected order for secure electronic voting at a selected time and within a selected time period by one or more voters, means for safe guarding, certifying and providing the election results at a selected time and in a selected manner in conjunction with one or more trusted escrow servers. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a plurality of votes’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
dynamically outputting, by the [[
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an
electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’; and C9,~L34-56 about {“……Alternately, the MVM (Mobile Voting Machine) is a standalone mobile voting machine designed specifically for executing electronic voting. The reference to MVM in the present invention is intended to include both the mobile device that is dynamically and temporarily configured for electronic voting and or a dedicated device designed specifically for mobile electronic voting purposes. The mobile device, acting as a MVM, is preferably touch screen input/output/display enabled for conforming to the official election body approved functions of an intelligent voting machine such that in this mode the mobile device emulates the approved and desired functions of an electronic voting machine. In certain cases the mobile device that is not touch screen enabled may with regulatory approval emulate the desired function of the electronic voting machine, by keyboard, voice or other input/output methods executed on the mobile device.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘dynamically outputting’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’; and para [0006] for “improved system and method”; and paras [0061], [0064], [0068], [0074]-[0076], [0113], [0148], [0152] & [0162] for “update/ updated”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘one report’ and ‘a progress’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account; and para [0002], [0027] & [0034] for “improving”; and para [0010] for “reported”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘one report’ and ‘a progress’ per BRI rules)
Dependent Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Penzak and Push as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one report can be based on at least one of the following criteria:
i) a security name, ii) a job number, iii) an election date, iv) an election time, v) a CUSIP, vi) at least one class, vii) an account number, viii) a number of shares, ix) a percentage tendered, x) a percentage not tendered, xi) shares, xii) the control number, and xiii) election shares;
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’; and paras [0002] & [0007]-[0014] for “stock shares”; and para [0006] for “a plurality of classes and sub-classes of shares”; and paras [0015]-[0021] for “common stock share/s”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include at least one of the (i) to (xiii) criteria)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account; and paras [0002], [0005] & [0034]-[0036] for “shares”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include at least one of the (i) to (xiii) criteria)
Dependent Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Penzak and Push as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Pub. No. 2011/ 0205231 filed by Hartley et al. (hereinafter “Hartley”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to New Claim 3, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
3. (New) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
(mapping ownership of a financial asset) to at least (one geographic location) based on (an anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data).
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘mapping ownership of a financial asset’ and 'one geographic location’ and ‘an anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data’. However, Hartley teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Hartley Abstract and Brief Summary in paras [0011]-[0018]; and Abstract about {“Novel tools and techniques for generating map displays to graphically illustrate financial performance. In one aspect, a map display might employ a coloration scheme that distinguishes among various ranked regions to illustrate, for example, revenue performance …… In another aspect, a map display might correlate a first set of revenue information (or other financial information) with other data sets, …… Such map displays might feature two maps side-by-side, or might superimpose a map of one data set over a map of another data set, to assist in the user's visual analysis.”}; and para [0000] about {“In particular, data on revenue from sales of products (which can include any of a variety of difference goods and/or services) can be used to drive decisions on which products should be emphasized in marketing campaigns, …… as well as insight into geographical trends (which can inform decisions about deployment of sales force resources, marketing resources, and/or the like).”}; and para [0009] about {“This problem is especially true when the display of the data is meant to provide geographical insight. …… or when attempting to map multiple data sets with disparate geographical dimensions.”}; and para [0012] about {“Yet other embodiments provide tools and techniques for generating map displays to graphically illustrate financial performance. In one aspect, a map display might employ a coloration scheme that distinguishes among various ranked regions to illustrate, for example, revenue performance …… In another aspect, a map display might correlate a first set of revenue information (or other financial information) with other data sets, …… Such map displays might feature two maps side-by-side, or might superimpose a map of one data set over a map of another data set, to assist in the user's visual analysis.”}; and para [0014] about {“…… In some cases, the method also comprises defining a geographical hierarchy for the revenue data, which might define a plurality of regions organized hierarchically, and/or categorizing the revenue data according to the geographical hierarchy.”}; and para [0029] about {“Yet other embodiments provide tools and techniques that generate map displays to graphically illustrate financial performance. In an aspect, a map display might employ a coloration scheme that distinguishes among various ranked regions to illustrate, for example, revenue performance …”}; and para [0030] about {“FIGS. 1-6 illustrate various methods that can be used to map financial information to geographic areas, analyze financial information, and/or display such mapped and/or analyzed financial information. …”}; and para [0040] about {“….(In some embodiments, the procedures for identifying the set of revenue transactions and for accessing revenue data might be consolidated into the same set of operations.)”}; and para [0042] about {“…… for example, by analyzing a revenue field in each record for each customer, and optionally consolidating the revenue values across multiple records (representing multiple revenue transactions) for a single customer.”}; and para [0052] about {“…… the revenue from all of the customers in each quartile can be summed to produce a consolidated revenue amount for that quartile. …”}; and para [0062] about {“As noted above, certain embodiments can provide insight into geographical revenue trends, e.g., by mapping and displaying revenue data. FIGS. 4 and 5 are process flow diagrams illustrating various methods 400 and 500, respectively, of mapping revenue data, in accordance with various embodiments. …”}; and para [0065] about {“At block 425, the method 400 comprises defining a geographical hierarchy by which the revenue data should be categorized. In an aspect, a geographical hierarchy defines a plurality of regions that may be organized hierarchically. Merely by way of example, a geographical hierarchy might comprise a first hierarchical level that includes the entire world. That geographical hierarchy might include a second hierarchical level that comprises several regions …”}; and para [0066] about {“In some cases, a geographical hierarchy might be defined based, at least in part, on user input. For example, a user might select a desired geographical hierarchy in the user interface. In other cases, a geographical hierarchy might be defined without user input at all, based, for instance, on a set of stored business rules that specify how a geographical hierarchy should be defined, and/or based on a geographical hierarchy specified by the financial data itself (e.g., in cases in which each transaction record has a geographical dimension, such as a sale location, customer location, etc.).”}; and paras [0067]-[0068]; and para [0069] about {“In such cases, the method 400 (and/or more precisely, the categorization of the data according to the geographical hierarchy) might include translating the geographical dimension of each financial data element from the second geographical hierarchy to the first geographical hierarchy (block 435). This can allow for the analysis and/or mapping of data from disparate sources and/or of legacy data that was collected using a different geographical hierarchy than the hierarchy that should be used to map the data. In one aspect, this translation can be facilitated by the use of a translation table, which maps locations in one hierarchy to locations in another hierarchy. …”}; and paras [0070]-[0074] and [0077]-[0078]; and para [0079] about {“Hence, certain embodiments provide a user with the ability to drill into a specific region to see data at a lower level of the geographical hierarchy. Other options may be available as well. Merely by way of example, in some cases, rather than displaying a lower-level map, the system might, upon receiving a selection of a region, display financial data (e.g., using the techniques discussed with respect to FIGS. 1-3) specific to that region. Hence, the use of map displays allows users to obtain financial performance information (and other information) quickly and easily, particularly with respect to a region (at any desired level of the geographical hierarchy) in which the user is interested.”}; and para [0080]-[0081], [0084]-[0085], [0088], [0090], [0096], [0101] & [0118]; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘mapping ownership of a financial asset’ and 'one geographic location’ and ‘an anonymous address-enriched consolidated financial data’)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the teachings of Rao, Penzak and Push with the teachings of Hartley. The motivation to combine these references would be to enable the casting of votes in commercial applications using mobile devices such as voting on various proxy matters of a company and other applications (see C3,~L1-5 of Rao), and to provide an improved system and method for allocating dividends to a plurality of classes and sub-classes of shares that addresses the need for customized investment instruments (see para [0006] of Penzak), and to allow the large sums of money moving between individual clearing members and clearinghouses but in the aggregate, there is little daily change in the overall amount of funds and securities allocated to futures trading across the various exchanges (see para [0024] of Push), and to fulfill a need for improved tools and techniques for analyzing data (in particular revenue data), and in providing the results of that analysis in a meaningful way, such as when the display of the data is meant to provide geographical insight (see paras [0009]-[0010] of Hartley).
Dependent Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Penzak and Push as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Pub. No. 2016/ 0019740 filed by Niebanck, Robert (hereinafter “Niebanck”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to New Claim 4, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
4. (New) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
(consolidating voting) requests from a plurality of financial-related entities into a (consolidated voting dataset).
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account; and para [0004] about {“A futures contract is a legally binding agreement to buy or sell a commodity or financial instrument, in a designated future month, at a price agreed upon today by a buyer (i.e., the party going "long") and a seller (i.e., the party going "short"). ……”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a plurality of financial-related entities’ per BRI rules)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘consolidate voting’ and 'consolidated voting dataset’. However, Niebanck teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Niebanck Abstract and Field of the Invention (Summary) in paras [0002]-[0009]; and para [0003] about {“More particularly, in one embodiment of the present invention a computer implemented voting method is provided, comprising: consolidating vote request information relating to a security owned by a beneficial owner and held by at least two custodians for the beneficial owner; generating at least a first computer file including the consolidated vote request information; electronically transmitting the first computer file to a computer system of a voting entity; integrating the first computer file into a database associated with the computer system of the voting entity; receiving, at the computer system of the voting entity, at least one beneficial owner vote instruction sent from the beneficial owner; and generating at least one voting entity vote instruction responsive to the consolidated vote request information, wherein the voting entity vote instruction is generated by the computer system of the voting entity based at least in part upon the integrated first computer file and the beneficial owner vote instruction from the beneficial owner.”}; and paras [0024] and [0025] about {“…… consolidating the information against an institutional account database for a particular voting entity; transmitting the issuer and custodian information to a designated voting entity; integrating the information into the voting entity's system; receiving the voting instructions from the voting entity; validating and confirming the voting instructions; and reporting the voting instructions;”}; and para [0035] about {“In any case, once the Voting Entity Computer System 111 receives the consolidated issuer information …… software may be used to convert the issuer information into the protocol of the Voting Entity Computer System 111 and then such converted information may be inserted into one or more databases associated with the Voting Entity Computer System 111.”}; and para [0036] about {“In a further embodiment, the Voting Entity Computer System 111 sends a notification (e.g. ballot confirmation file) to the Data Consolidation Computer System 101 to confirm that the Voting Entity Computer System 111 received and/or integrated the issuer information. In one example, if the Data Consolidation Computer System 101 does not receive such notification (e.g. the Voting Entity Computer System 111 did not confirm that the issuer information was received and/or integrated), the Data Consolidation Computer System 101 may continue to send the information until the Data Consolidation Computer System 101 receives such confirmation.”}; and paras [0037]-[0039];
which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘consolidate voting’ and 'consolidated voting dataset’)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the teachings of Rao, Penzak and Push with the teachings of Niebanck. The motivation to combine these references would be to enable the casting of votes in commercial applications using mobile devices such as voting on various proxy matters of a company and other applications (see C3,~L1-5 of Rao), and to provide an improved system and method for allocating dividends to a plurality of classes and sub-classes of shares that addresses the need for customized investment instruments (see para [0006] of Penzak), and to allow the large sums of money moving between individual clearing members and clearinghouses but in the aggregate, there is little daily change in the overall amount of funds and securities allocated to futures trading across the various exchanges (see para [0024] of Push), and to fulfill a need for improved tools and techniques for analyzing data (in particular revenue data), and to consolidate vote request information relating to a security owned by a beneficial owner and held by at least two custodians for the beneficial owner (see at least [0003] of Niebanck).
With respect to New Claim 5, Rao, Penzak, Push and Niebanck teach ---
5. (New) The method of claim 4, further comprising:
removing duplicate information from the consolidated voting dataset.
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’; and Claim 8 about {“…… means for ensuring that duplication of voting by the same individual and other unauthorized actions are precluded …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘removing duplicate information’ per BRI rules’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
(see at least: Niebanck ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘consolidate voting’ and 'consolidated voting dataset’; and para [0040] about {“…… The voting entity can then either resubmit or delete the voting instruction (the review/resubmit/delete process may be carried out manually or automatically). …”}; and para [0085] about {“…… Once the Data Consolidation Computer System 101 receives this file, the Data Consolidation Computer System 101 may delete the downloaded file(s) and update the ballot files with the result codes and download flags. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘removing duplicate information’ per BRI rules)
Dependent Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Penzak and Push as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-2 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to New Claim 6, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
6. [[
calculating a total number of votes held per each geographic location at a predetermined period of time.
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’ and ‘submit a vote’; and C5,~L58-61 about {“It is an object of the present invention that a single mobile device is capable of various communication, computation and control applications and is further enabled for electronic voting at the desired time and for the desired elections.”}; and C6,~L4-12 about {“It is an object of the present invention to enable the stationary devices configured with touch screens, mobile devices configured with touch screens and intelligent touch screen enabled voting machines located at the polling station to be used in a uniform and identical manner to meet the requirements of the election authorities by communicating with the trusted servers of the election authorities by wired or wireless means while protecting the confidentiality of the ballot.”}; and C6,~41-48 about {“FIG. 4 is an embodiment of the present invention showing a means for redundant and secure servers/storage located locally and or in one or more remote locations, said servers/storage being connected by wired or wireless methods for secure communication; and working in conjunction with the Escrow Server, Trusted Servers, Intelligent Voting Machines, IVM and Mobile Voting Machines, MVM units over public and private networks.”}; and C6,~L54-58 about {“FIG. 6 is an embodiment of the present invention showing a means for voice input/output in one or more languages to enable language impaired voters to cast their votes. Additionally includes a trusted time keeping server and a trusted GPS server for location determination of the mobile voter.”}; and C8,~L1-22 about {“…… The voting machine is activated by the voter by means of an activation card, 104 issued by the polling workers to the voter at the time of voting at a polling station. The voting machine of the prior art does not comprise of a microphone and speakers for voice and audio input/output. …”}; and C8,~L23-63 about {“…… As an example, the trusted local server 220 with its associated storage 221 may be located at the precinct level or other locations, the trusted central server, 230 with its associated storage 231 may be located at the county level and the network server, 240 with its associated storage 241 may be located at the state level. The elections generally are the responsibilities of the state and directly not that of the federal government. …”}; and C15,~L51 to C16,~L10 about {“…… This problem is solved in the present invention by having the IVM/MVM and the trusted servers synchronized or alerted such that voters have a better knowledge of the accurate time at which polls open and polls close and the elapsed duration for each precinct. Voting by the highly mobile electorate is likely across various time zones while the voter is only authorized to participate in elections in a geographical area such as a designated, city, municipality, county or a state. Thus the voter on the move must have the ability to exercise the right to vote in conformance with the local regulations. The trusted servers are enabled to cause a lock out event for any attempt to vote outside the designated time based parameters.”}; and C16,~L11-30 about {“Example 6.11: In yet another embodiment of the present invention, at times the physical location of the highly mobile voter is relevant. Certain countries and election authorities require by law that the voter be present physically within their geographical boundaries. In order to facilitate voting by the MVM method it is therefore necessary to authenticate the physical location of the voter at a given time. The present invention uses a trusted GPS, global positioning server that works in tandem with the trusted servers of the election body. The MVM contacts the election trusted servers, said servers initiate a GPS tracking of the MVM unit and determine its location which is checked and validated by the trusted GPS server and the trusted election servers working in tandem; and further authenticated for time and place and then enabling the MVM and the voter to cast the ballot upon approval. These location determining, time determining and other authentication and enabling actions are performed by the MVM device and the trusted servers acting in tandem or in a sequential manner by means of wired or wireless secure connectivity.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘calculating a total number of votes held per each geographic location at a predetermined period of time’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Dependent Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Penzak and Push as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-2 & 6 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2012/ 0239464 filed by Vicari, Joseph (hereinafter “Vicari”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to New Claim 7, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
7. (New) The method of claim 6, further comprising:
permitting the account to access (a shareholder forum) prior to a start of a presentation of the (shareholder meeting).
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’, ‘submit a vote’ and ‘calculating a total number of votes held per each geographic location at a predetermined period of time’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Rao, Penzak and Push teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘a shareholder forum’ and 'shareholder meeting’. However, Vicari teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Vicari Abstract and Summary of Invention in paras [0005]-[0012]; and para [0054] about {“ Shareholder Forum and VSM content when applicable--Display of Shareholder Forum and Virtual Annual Meeting content when applicable.”}; and sub-section titled == “
Shareholder Forum and VSM Content when Applicable” and para [0108] about {“In some embodiments of the instant invention, the mobile proxy voting website shareholder portal page is an interim page that is only displayed if the user has logged in to a meeting that has mailed Notice and Access, or that Issuer has a Shareholder Forum or Virtual Shareholder Meeting available.”}; and para [0109] about {“The Shareholder Forum is a venue for validated shareholders of an Issuer to collaborate with the Issuer and other shareholders. The Virtual Annual Meeting is a web application that hosts an Issuer's annual meeting live online. …”}; and para [0111] about {“The mobile proxy voting website can display information when a Shareholder forum and/or Virtual Meeting is available.”}; and para [0113] about {“Using indicators (available in the MeetingDTO after calling the getMeetingDetails API) should be referenced to determine if a Shareholder forum and/or Virtual Meeting are available.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a shareholder forum’ and 'shareholder meeting’)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the teachings of Rao, Penzak and Push with the teachings of Vicari. The motivation to combine these references would be to enable the casting of votes in commercial applications using mobile devices such as voting on various proxy matters of a company and other applications (see C3,~L1-5 of Rao), and to provide an improved system and method for allocating dividends to a plurality of classes and sub-classes of shares that addresses the need for customized investment instruments (see para [0006] of Penzak), and to allow the large sums of money moving between individual clearing members and clearinghouses but in the aggregate, there is little daily change in the overall amount of funds and securities allocated to futures trading across the various exchanges (see para [0024] of Push), and to fulfill a need for improved tools and techniques for analyzing data (in particular revenue data), and to provide Internet-based voting systems, for example, Proxyvote.com is a web-based voting system capturing shareholders' voting instructions for corporation's meeting agenda (see para [0003] of Vicari).
With respect to New Claim 8, Rao, Penzak, Push and Vicari teach ---
8. (New) The method of claim 6, further comprising:
permitting the account to access a shareholder forum after a presentation of the shareholder meeting has ended.
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’, ‘submit a vote’ and ‘calculating a total number of votes held per each geographic location at a predetermined period of time’)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
(see at least: Vicari ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a shareholder forum’ and 'shareholder meeting’)
Dependent Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Rao in view of Penzak and Push as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-2 & 6 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to New Claim 9, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
9. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving of the electronic voting request comprise periodic receipt of voting requests at predetermined periods of time.
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’, ‘submit a vote’ and ‘calculating a total number of votes held per each geographic location at a predetermined period of time’) ; and C4,~L54-58 about {“It is an object of the present invention to enable for the real time provision of a validated electronic receipt which includes the actual voter selections and time stamp, such validation being executed by the trusted election server and provided to the voter/mobile device.”}; and C7,~L60-67 about {“It is readily apparent that the voting machine of the prior art does not enable the voter to receive a print out of the manner in which the voter has cast the votes nor does it provide a receipt. With this limitation the voter is unsure if the specific votes that are cast by the voter on one or more line items and or in total have been recorded properly. …”}; which together are the same s claimed limitations above to include ‘periodic receipt of voting requests at predetermined periods of time’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
With respect to New Claim 10, Rao, Penzak and Push teach ---
10. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the control number is a unique identifier that uniquely identifies a particular account associated with an individual.
(see at least: Rao ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a computer system’, ‘an electronic voting’, ‘to conduct … voting’, ‘one security…’, ‘a deadline …’ and ‘one condition …’; ‘vote invitation’, ‘submit a vote’ and ‘calculating a total number of votes held per
geographic location at a predetermined period of time’; and C4,~L9-22 about {“It is an object of the present invention to enable authentication of the voter by the local, central and or network server by one or means inclusive of photo, driver's license, passport, social security or similar identification cards, video, audio, voice print, finger print, retinal print, digital signature, handwriting recognition, signature recognition, the unique mobile device identification number and other similar means not enumerated herein. ……… It is an object of the present invention to enable authentication of the voter's unique identifying attributes by comparison with various lookup tables/databases resident on the mobile device itself and or in conjunction with the lookup tables/databases resident on the local, central and or network servers.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a unique identifier that uniquely identifies’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Penzak ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more accounts associated with ownership shares’)
(see at least: Push ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘control number’ for each account)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims; and said prior art includes references with synonyms for terms used in the claims that have been interpreted under the BRI (broad reasonable interpretation) procedures of the Office. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
