DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The reply filed 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5-6, and 10-11 have been amended. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 10-11, filed 04/02/2026, have overcome the claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 04/02/2026. Therefore, the claim objections to claims 10-11 have been withdrawn.
Amended claim 10 is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since it now recites sufficient structure (“a consuming system comprising a computer processor”). Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections to claim 10 have been withdrawn. Since claim 15 has been canceled, the rejections have been rendered moot. Claim 5 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) because the amendments do not preclude it from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Under the 3-prong analysis, see MPEP 2181(I): 1) the term used as a generic placeholder is “system,” 2) the functional language modifying the generic placeholder is “receives the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox” and “consumes the account balance,” note that a transition word is not required for a limitation to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and 3) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. As such, claim 5 continues to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) under the 3-prong analysis, and the remarks have not presented any further remarks against the applied 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections. Therefore, claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the elements reciting a meaningful way of using the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment on pg. 11, as currently recited, the booking periods and unique identifier are reasonably part of the abstract idea of tracking financial transactions. They are not considered additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, they do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way since these elements are considered a part of the recited abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding establishing a prima facie case of obviousness on pgs. 11-13, the rationales have been provided for the obviousness rejections, however, Applicant’s remarks have failed to specifically address what has already been established in the Non-Final Rejection 01/16/2026 on pgs. 16-17. The remarks do not provide any substantive argument related to the claimed limitations themselves or any remarks related to the reasonings provided in the obviousness rejections. Therefore, there are no further remarks related to this matter that need to be addressed.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the account number on pgs. 14-16, Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 discloses that during account creation, the client’s bank account information may be entered to create the account [0030]. Therefore, Woodard discloses creating an account using an account number, which is analogous to creating an account with an account number because Woodard’s creation process uses the bank account information to create the client entity account, and is therefore creating the client entity account with an account number. Woodard also suggests that bank account information can include account number associated with such account [0029]. Furthermore, Woodard discloses an account identifier, i.e. unique identifier, that uniquely identifies the client entity account in the processor’s data store 314 [0063]. The client entity account was created with the bank account information, i.e. account number, and since the account identifier uniquely identifies said client entity account created with the bank account information, this is analogous to the account identifier being mapped to the bank account information because the client entity account includes the bank account information.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding no disclosure that the account on the ledger is for the unique identifier for the account number on pgs. 16-17, please see above for Examiner’s response on the account number. Furthermore, Woodard discloses a ledger account that is associated with an entity account [0037], and an entity account is identified by an account identifier [0063], therefore, the ledger account is for the unique account identifier.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the booking periods on pgs. 17-18, Woodard discloses that the ledger account keeps track of the balance of each entity, and for a given party, its ledger account includes the transactions, which includes the dates and amounts [0036]. The dates are analogous to the claimed booking periods. Although Woodard does not expressly disclose that each “date” is a “business day,” Woodard does suggest use of business days when setting financial deadlines [0077]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that banks operate on business days. Therefore, modifying the “dates” in Woodard’s ledger accounts to correspond to business days would yield predictable results.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the unified ledger account does not identify the account number on pg. 18, Woodard discloses the ledger account includes drafts, payments, fees, and other various debits and credits, including dates and amounts [0037] for an entity. The ledger account’s purpose is to track an entity’s respective balance [0036] and is associated with the entity account [0037]. The entity account is identified by the client’s entity account identifier [0063]. Therefore, the ledger account would at most identify the client’s entity account identifier, i.e. unique identifier, which is not the account number.
In response to Applicant’s remarks regarding the claimed identifier and booking periods on pg. 18, please see above for the Examiner’s response and below for how the claimed identifier and booking periods are being mapped. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not claim using the unique identifier to route the transaction to the proper account. Therefore, such argument is not relevant to what is being claimed.
Regarding the amendments to claims 1, 6, and 11 – “wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance,” Examiner notes that the content of the account request is nonfunctional descriptive language. The content of the account creation request does not meaningfully limit how the request is received and/or how the account is created. Therefore, the content of the account creation request cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, the previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a consuming system receives the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox and a consuming system consumes the account balance in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a consuming system…consumes the account balance” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the “consumes the account balance.” The specification discloses in [0068] that system or portions of the system may be in the form of a “processing machine,” such as a general-purpose computer, and the term “processing machine” is to be understood to include at least one processor that uses at least one memory. However, such description for a system does not necessarily include a “consuming system.” Furthermore, computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specification does not provide such algorithm and therefore does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 function of consuming the account balance. 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.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Examiner recommends amending the system claims to recite tangible hardware, as disclosed by the description provided in [0068] of the instant specification.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. For purposes of compact prosecution, since it appears from the instant disclosure that claims 6-9 can be easily amended to fall within a statutory category, they shall be included in the eligibility analysis. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 6 and 11 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to independent claims 1, 6, and 11. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
receiving, by a unified account service computer program, an account creation request from a system of record, wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance;
creating, by the unified account service computer program, an account with an account number;
mapping, by the unified account service computer program, the account number to a unique identifier and storing the mapping;
streaming, by the unified account service computer program, the unique identifier and account data to a unified ledger, wherein the unified ledger is configured to create a unified ledger account on the unified ledger for the unique identifier with the account data and to set an account balance for the unified ledger account for a plurality of booking periods, wherein each booking period corresponds to a business day, wherein the unified ledger account does not identify the account number;
receiving, by a unified postings service computer program, a transaction with a transaction booking period for the account;
identifying, by the unified postings service computer program and using the mapping, the unique identifier for the account; and
routing, by the unified postings service computer program, the transaction and the unique identifier to the unified ledger, wherein the unified ledger is configured to update the account balance for the unified ledger account for the booking period specified by the transaction booking period.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-G recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claimed limitations can be grouped as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Creating an account and mapping the account to create a ledger account to track account balance(s) based on a transaction is analogous to tracking financial transactions, which is managing personal behavior.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
Claim 6 also recites similar additional elements as claim 1, and further recites “a system” as an additional element. Claim 11 further recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors” as additional elements. These additional elements have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, and 12-14 elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 and 10 recite “the unified ledger publishes the account balance for at least one of the booking periods to an outbox” and “a consuming system receives/is configured to receive the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox” as additional elements. The limitation “consumes/to consume the account balance” is interpreted to mean a transfer of funds, which is elaborating on the abstract idea identified above. Publishing the account balance and receiving the account balance are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they amount to no more than mere data gathering and outputting. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), buySAFE. Furthermore, a “consuming system” and “a consuming system comprising a computer processor” have been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than a generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-14 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 (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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 in view of Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402 (herein as “Mullen”).
Re Claim 1, Woodard teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a unified account service computer program, an account creation request from a system of record […] ([0030] – “As a company 104 acquires clients 102, its personnel may use the platform 100 to conduct client entity account creation for each of its new clients 102,” i.e. company 104 is analogous to a system of record, platform 100 is analogous to a unified account service computer program and a unified postings service computer program, [0034] – “these actions (i.e. entity account creation) may be brought about [in] other ways…the platform 100 may extend API’s that permit a debt settlement company 104 to command the platform 100 to take such actions,” i.e. command the platform 100 is analogous to the platform 100 receiving an account creation request);
creating, by the unified account service computer program, an account with an account number [0030] – “During client entity account creation for a new client 102, a company 104 representative may enter information identifying the new client (name, address, social security number, bank account information, and so on)”;
mapping, by the unified account service computer program, the account number to a unique identifier and storing the mapping ([0063] – “the client’s entity account identifier 518 uniquely identifying the client entity account in the processor’s data store 314,” since the account identifier uniquely identifies the client entity account, it maps to the client 102, which includes identifying information such as bank account information, i.e. account number);
streaming, by the unified account service computer program, the unique identifier and account data to a unified ledger ([0036] – “For each client 102, company 104 and affiliate 116, the platform 100 maintains a ledger account to keep track of their respective balances,” streaming is analogous to sending/transmitting information, and maintaining a ledger account to track a respective entity’s balance suggests that the entity’s information, including identifying and transaction information, is sent/transmitted to the ledger account, the ledger accounts are collectively analogous to the unified ledger), wherein the unified ledger is configured to create a unified ledger account on the unified ledger for the unique identifier with the account data and to set an account balance for the unified ledger account for a plurality of booking periods, wherein each booking period corresponds to a business day, wherein the unified ledger account does not identify the account number ([0036] – “For a given party, its ledger account includes the transactions (drafts, payments, fees, and other various debits and credits, including their dates and amounts)…and includes a balance reflecting the net effect of all such transactions,” [0037] – “A ledger account is associated with an entity account,” [0063] – “the client’s entity account identifier 518 uniquely identifying the client entity account.” The ledger account identifies the client’s entity account identifier since the ledger account is associated with the client entity account, and the client’s entity account identifier uniquely identifies said client entity account, the ledger account does not identify the client’s bank account information, i.e. account number. Dates are analogous to a plurality of booking periods. Although Woodard does not expressly disclose that each “date” is a “business day,” Woodard does suggest use of business days when setting financial deadlines [0077]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that banks operate on business days. Therefore, modifying the “dates” in Woodard’s ledger accounts to correspond to business days would yield predictable results);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that since a ledger account is associated with an entity account, it must also be created for the entity account that was previously created.
receiving, by a unified postings service computer program, a transaction with a transaction booking period for the account ([0031] – “The representative may enter information specifying the schedule of payments,” [0038] – the scheduled payments are associated with a client 102 and with a particular date, i.e. transaction booking period);
identifying, by the unified postings service computer program and using the mapping, the unique identifier for the account [0063] – “the client’s entity account identifier uniquely identifying the client entity account,” “a payment transaction record includes a client entity account identifier (information element 518) to identify the client’s entity account”; and
routing, by the unified postings service computer program, the transaction and the unique identifier to the unified ledger, wherein the unified ledger is configured to update the account balance for the unified ledger account for the booking period specified by the transaction booking period ([0036] – “For each client 102, company 104 and affiliate 116, the platform 100 maintains a ledger account to keep track of their respective balances,” “For a given party, its ledger account includes the transactions (drafts, payments, fees, and other various debits and credits, including their dates and amounts),” routing is analogous to sending/transmitting information, and maintaining a ledger account to track a respective entity’s balance suggests that the entity and transaction information is sent/transmitted to the ledger account, [0037] – “such as a client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with the aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” this suggests that once the scheduled payment is process, the ledger account would be updated with the information).
Woodard discloses in [0096] that the computer system can comprise of software elements, such as code, and/or one or more application programs, which may comprise computer programs provided by various embodiments, and/or may be designed to implement methods, and/or configure systems, provided by other embodiments as described. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the various claim elements can be implemented by one or more computer programs.
However, Woodard does not expressly disclose
wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance.
Mullen discloses a financial management system. Specifically, Mullen discloses
wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance ([0013] – “virtual-sub accounts may be created with pre-defined attributes or user defined attributes,” [0014] – “virtual-sub accounts may also be categorized according to use,” i.e. type of account, [0022] – “creating a sub-account database defining attributes and virtual balances for a plurality of virtual sub-accounts,” i.e. account available balance, [0045] – “define the operational model parameters of said virtual sub-accounts,” [0051] – “said parameters of said sub-accounts may include real transactions associated with said single account, or virtual transactions between said sub-accounts,” i.e. account value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of defining account attributes and parameters during creation in Mullen. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable tracking financial information on a more detailed level to examine credits and/or debits relating to a specific category of financial activity Mullen, [0006].
Re Claim 2, Woodard in view of Mullen teach the method of claim 1, Woodard in view of Mullen further teach wherein the account creation request comprises an account type and an account currency for the account.
Examiner notes that the content of the account creation request is nonfunctional descriptive material. The content of the account creation request, such as an account type and an account currency, do not meaningfully limit how the account creation request is received and/or how the account is created. Therefore, the content of the account creation request cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, see at least Woodard, [0029] for teachings of a client entity account and a company entity account, i.e. an account type, and Woodard, [0031] for teachings of payment creation process associated with each client 102 account that defines each payment to be made to a given client’s creditor(s), i.e. an amount currency for the account.
Re Claim 5, Woodard in view of Mullen teach the method of claim 1, and Woodard in view of Mullen further teach wherein the unified ledger publishes the account balance for at least one of the booking periods to an outbox (Woodard, [0035] – “Via the website 124, the client 102 may view information related to his…ledger account…such as its current balance…scheduled and completed transactions, e.g. scheduled and completed drafts, fees and creditor payments” website 124 is analogous to the outbox); and
a consuming system receives the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox and consumes the account balance (Woodard, [0040] – “communicate with the processor’s bank 112 to instruct it to transfer funds from the aggregated custodial account 210 into a disbursement account 212, 213, 214, or 216, in an amount equal to the payment amount within the aforementioned record.” Bank 112 is analogous to a consuming system, and it receiving instructions to transfer funds is analogous to it receiving the account balance, the fund amount being analogous to the account balance, and transfer funds to a disbursement account is analogous to consume the account balance. Aforementioned record includes the record representing the due scheduled payment transaction for a client).
The outbox is not actively sending the account balance, therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, “the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox” is interpreted to be any amount of funds that is analogous to what can be displayed on the website 124.
Since adequate structure has not been identified in the specification for performing the claimed function in claim 5, the consuming system is interpreted for the purpose of applying prior art as any known structure implemented in hardware, software, or combination of the two that consumes the account balance.
Re Claims 6-7 and 10, they are the system claims for method claims 1-2 and 5, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-2 and 5. Furthermore, Woodard discloses a computing system, including processor(s), designed to implement the disclosed method(s) in at least Fig. 11, [0092], [0096]. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claims 11-12, they are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims of method claims 1-2, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-2. Furthermore, Woodard discloses a computer-readable storage medium in [0097] and processor in [0096] to perform one or more operations in accordance with the described methods.
Claims 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 in view of Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402 (herein as “Mullen”) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, and further in view of Kumar U.S. 2021/0103583.
Re Claim 3, Woodard in view of Mullen teach the method of claim 1, and Woodard in view of Mullen further teach further comprising:
wherein the unified ledger account on the unified ledger is unchanged. [0037] – “such as client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” i.e. unchanged.
However, Woodard in view of Mullen do not explicitly teach
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, a new account number for the account; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the mapping to replace the account number with the new account number.
Kumar discloses a cloud-based renumbering of identifiers. Specifically, Kumar discloses
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, a new account number for the account [0051] – “The change request 125 can specify a new account identifier for a G/L account”; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the mapping to replace the account number with the new account number [0051] – “the old account identifier associated with the G/L account is replaced with the new account identifier. Then, at 330, for the reference framework 160 interfacing with the plurality of backend tables 150, the old account identifier associated with the G/L account is also replaced with the new account identifier.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard in view of Mullen’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of receiving a new account number and updating the mapping to replace the account number with the new account number in Kumar. One would be motivated to make this combination because it would allow clients to reconfigure/update systems after deployment without discarding historical transactional data Kumar, [0098].
Re Claim 8, it is the system claim for method claim 3. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim for method claim 3. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 in view of Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402 (herein as “Mullen”) as applied to claims 2, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Kumawat et al. U.S. 2024/0420115 (herein as “Kumawat”).
Re Claim 4, Woodard in view of Mullen teach the method of claim 2, and Woodard in view of Mullen further teach further comprising:
wherein the unified ledger account on the unified ledger is unchanged. [0037] – “such as client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” i.e. unchanged.
However, Woodard in view of Mullen do not explicitly teach
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, an account type change for the account; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the account type for the account number based on the account type change.
Kumawat discloses a method and system for identifying type of account. Specifically, Kumawat discloses
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, an account type change for the account [0025] – “Once the account type for the new blockchain wallet is identified,” “when the account type for the new blockchain changes”; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the account type for the account number based on the account type change [0025] – “the flag stored in the data entry in the lookup table can be updated if the account type for the new blockchain wallet changes.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard in view of Mullen’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of receiving an account type change and updating the account type for the account number in Kumawat. One would be motivated to make this combination to stay up-to-date for regulatory purposes and compliance with applicable sanctions Kumawat, [0003], [0015].
Re Claim 9, it is the system claim for method claim 4. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 14, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim for method claim 4. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights