Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 06/16/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application has PRO 63/662,996 06/21/2024
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.
All claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 8 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method for use in orchestrating data connections, the method comprising: receiving, by an orchestration host computing device, an access request for a user; identifying, by the computing device, through an open service, multiple accounts issued to said user, each of the multiple accounts issued by a different one of multiple account hosts; identifying, by the computing device, for each of the multiple account hosts, multiple consent terms; aggregating, by the computing device, the identified consent terms for the multiple account hosts, thereby reducing a number of the identified consent terms; presenting, by the computing device, at a communication device associated with the user, the aggregate consent terms to the user; and based on acceptance from the user of the aggregate consent terms, submitting, by the computing device, a data connection request to each of the multiple account hosts.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “submitting a data connection request to each of the multiple account hosts.” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “by the computing device” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any 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 both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims 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 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.
Claims 1-15 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chris=Christidis (U.S. Patent 11663609) in view of Pin=Pinski (U.S. Patent Pub 2019/0087892) and in view of White=Whitesage (U.S. Patent Pub 2011/0137712) and in view of Snow (U.S. Patent Pub 2010/0145767)
Re claim 1 & 8: Chris discloses:
A computer-implemented method for use in orchestrating data connections, the method comprising: (see Chris Figure 6)
receiving, by an orchestration host computing device, an access request for a user; (see Chris Fig 6 item 602-610 + para 22 + 27 + Fig 4-5)
identifying, by the computing device, through an open service, multiple accounts issued to said user, each of the multiple accounts issued by a different one of multiple account hosts; (see Chris Fig 5 item 502-506 + Fig 4 item 402 + Fig 6 item 602-610)
identifying, by the computing device, for each of the multiple account hosts, multiple consent terms; (see Chris Fig 5 item 508-512 + 516-520 + Fig 4 item 404-408 + Fig 6 item 602-610)
aggregating, by the computing device, the identified consent terms for the multiple account hosts, thereby reducing a number of the identified consent terms; (see Chris Fig 5 item 508-512 + 516-520 + Fig 4 item 404-408 + Fig 6 item 602-616)
presenting, by the computing device, at a communication device associated with the user, the aggregate consent terms to the user; and (see Chris Fig 5 item 508-512 + 516-520 + Fig 4 item 404-408 + Fig 6 item 610-618)
based on acceptance from the user of the aggregate consent terms, submitting, by the computing device, a data connection request to each of the multiple account hosts. (see Chris Fig 5 item 514 + 508-512 + 516-520 + Fig 4 item 412-416 + Fig 6 item 610-618 + Fig 3)
Although Chris rates to blockchain does not explicitly have host accounts, Pin and White and Snow more clearly claims “Host accounts”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Chris by adapting any features of Pin and White and Snow.
Pin teaches “bank accounts” that are “hosts” in Fig 9A item 903 + Fig 9b – 9c + 1-3
White teaches “suppliers” that are “hosts” in Figure 8A item 809 + Figure 2A-2C.
Snow teaches “contracts” that are “hosts” in figure 2 item 220 + Fig 1.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Chris teaches blockchain as relating to assessing terms in multiple contracts that is adapted in Pin and White and Snow system.
Re claim 2 & 9: see claim 1 +
wherein the open service includes an open banking service. (see Chris Fig 5 item 502-506 + Fig 4 item 402 + Fig 6 item 602-610 + Pin teaches “bank accounts” that are “hosts” in Fig 9A item 903 + Fig 9b – 9c + 1-3)
Re claim 3 & 10: see claim 1 +
further comprising presenting the identified accounts to the user, at the communication device associated with the user; and receiving a selection of a plurality of the multiple accounts; wherein identifying the consent terms includes identifying the consent terms for only the selected plurality of the multiple accounts. (see Chris Fig 5 item 508-512 + 516-520 + Fig 4 item 404-408 + Fig 6 item 602-610 + Snow figure 2)
Re claim 4 & 11: see claim 1 +
wherein receiving the access request includes receiving the access request from the communication device associated with the user. (see Chris Fig 6 item 602-610 + para 22 + 27 + Fig 4-5 + White para 0041)
Re claim 5 & 12: see claim 1 +
wherein aggregating the identified consent terms includes combining at least one of the consent terms for one of the multiple account hosts with at least one of the consent terms for a different one of the multiple account hosts, thereby reducing the number of the identified consent terms. (see Chris Fig 5 item 508-512 + 516-520 + Fig 4 item 404-408 + Fig 6 item 602-616 + Pin para 0049-0050)
Re claim 6 & 14: see claim 1 +
further comprising: receiving, in response to the data connection request, an access token from each of the multiple account hosts; and forwarding the access tokens, from the multiple account hosts, to a data platform, whereby, in response to the access tokens, the data platform is permitted to establish data connection with each of the multiple account hosts to access data specific to the identified accounts. (see Chris Fig 6 item 602-610 + para 22 + 27 + Fig 4-5 + White para 0041)
Re claim 7 & 15: see claim 1 +
wherein the access request and the data connection requests include an email address and/or a mobile phone number of the user. (see Chris Fig 6 item 602-610 + para 22 + 27 + Fig 4-5 + White para 0041 + para 0121)
Re claim 13: see claim 1 +
wherein the executable instructions, when executed by at least one processor to aggregate the consent terms, cause the at least one processor to select one of the consent terms for one of the multiple account hosts and to delete one of the consent terms for a different one of the multiple account hosts, based on subjects of the selected one of the consent terms and the deleted one of the consent terms being the same. (see Chris Fig 6 item 602-610 + para 22 + 27 + Fig 4-5 + Pin para 0056)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuzefovich, U.S. PatentPub US 20140050307, discloses a communication session platform for a first participant to communicate to a second recipient in a service provider capacity.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights