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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2025is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 08/15/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made non-final.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 – 20 in this application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent method claim 1, independent system claim 8, and independent non-transitory computer readable medium claim 15 of the issued parent patent to Huber (US12412210B2, the “210” patent, henceforth).
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 approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Although the instant claims 1 - 20 are not identical to the above noted claims of the “210” patent, they are not patentably distinct, as more specifically noted in the analysis below.
Anticipation analysis
Regarding independent method claim 1, independent system claim 8, and independent non-transitory computer readable medium claim 15 of the instant claims under examination (mirrored), these several independent claims herein (and all of their dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 – 20, via dependency) are all anticipated by the allowed independent claims of the parent (i.e., parent “210’s” independent claims 1, 8, and 15). This is because the above noted independent claims of the granted parent patent, respectively (the “210” patent), recite at least each and every limitation of the similarly styled instant independent claims herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Manna (US20210194885A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15:
Manna discloses:
A method that includes one or more processing devices performing operations comprising:
Examiner notes that “The foregoing description of some examples has been presented only for the purpose of illustration and description and is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise forms disclosed. Numerous modifications and adaptations thereof will be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure.”, See Specification herein at [082]), that said …
providing, from a risk assessment computing system, a user interface to a first entity, (“In one embodiment, a computerized method is performed by a computing system having one or more hardware computer processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage device storing software instructions executable by the computing system to perform the computerized method comprising receiving, via network communication with a user computing device, selection of a third-party entity from a plurality of third-party entities indicated in a user interface displayed on the user computing device,”, [007]) and (“The method may further include, in response to determining that the first confidence level is about a first threshold, applying a first account scoring model to the account data, the first account scoring model configured to determine an expected change to a risk score associated with the user.”, [007]);
the user interface comprising a plurality of user interface elements corresponding to a plurality of risk assessment indicators; (“In one embodiment, the method further includes, prior to receiving credentials from the user computing device, transmit user interface data to the user computing device, the user interface data configured to depict a permissions interface element that is selectable to indicate authorization to access account information associated with the user, and receiving, from the user computing device, authorization to access account information associated with the user.”, [008]);
receiving, via the user interface, and at the risk assessment computing system, first risk assessment data that is associated with the first entity; (“The method may further include receiving, from the user computing device, confirmation that the account of the user is the first type of account, receiving, from the user computing device, a request to add the account with the recipient to risk data associated with the user at a secured third-party risk database. The method may further include generating, based on portions of the plurality of data items and the account data associated with the recipient, an account creation data package, the account creation data package formatted for ingestion at the secured third-party risk database to initiate addition of the account to risk data of the user,”, [007])
generating a digital token in response to the first entity performing an interaction via the user interface; (“In one embodiment, after authorization to access a particular user's financial account information at a particular financial institution has been established, the data permissioning component 112 (and/or other related components) may request financial account information (for example, transaction data items) of the using a user-specific token, such as may be issued by the data permissioning component 112 and/or an API token generator/manager”, [0212]);
using the digital token to access second risk assessment data that is associated with the first entity, wherein the second risk assessment data is provided to the risk assessment computing system by a second, digitally secured entity; (“the API token and the credentials, receiving, via the system, indicators of one or more accounts of the user with the selected third-party entity, receiving, from the user computing device, selection of an account of the one or more financial accounts, accessing, via a secure communication session initiated with the API token, a plurality of data items of the selected account of the user at the third-party entity, transmitting user interface data to the user computing device, the user interface data configured to depict a user interface on a display of the user computing device, the user interface including one or more interactive elements selectable to indicate authorized uses of the data items by the computing system,”, [016]);
validating, by the risk assessment computing system and during the same validation process, the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data; (“In some embodiments, the account identification component (and/or the account verification component) validate ownership of a DDA account by the user to ensure that the appropriate user is provided the potential credit score boost from payments included in the DDA account. For example, an account ownership validation component may receive information regarding an account, such as name, address, email address, phone number, etc, from the financial institution. This account ownership information may then be compared to user information associated with the user's account with the account identification system, such as a credit monitoring account. The account ownership information could be provided by the account access system, such as via an API communication to the account discovery system, so that the account discovery system may perform the account ownership validation matching and validation.”, [0163]);
outputting the validated first risk assessment data and the validated second risk assessment data for display on the user interface; and (“In one embodiment, the method further comprises generating interactive user interface data configured to display an interactive user interface on the user computing device, the user interface depicting information regarding at least one of the first one or more items, determining an estimated risk score of the user based on potential addition of a new account of the user to risk data of the user, in response to determining that at least one of the second one or more items would be matched to the user based on the estimated risk score, providing an option to the user in the interactive user interface to initiate updates to risk data of the user, in response to receiving an indication of selection of the option in the interactive user interface on the user computing device,”, [026]);
transmitting, to a remote computing device, a responsive message including at least the validated first risk assessment data and the validated second risk assessment data. (“Multiple data items, which may be accessed or received from one or more third-party entities, such as via a direct application programming interface (API) communication channel, are analyzed to determine whether any of the data items, or combinations of data items, meet rules for addition of the data items to a secure third-party risk item database.”, [005]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17:
Manna discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectfully:
Manna further discloses
wherein the operation of receiving the first risk assessment data via the user interface comprises receiving input from the first entity for causing a subsequent user interface to be provided to the first entity, and wherein the subsequent user interface comprises a subsequent plurality of user interface elements usable by the first entity to cause the first risk assessment data to be received. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include in its meaning that a plurality of interfaces, some of which have differing “elements” (read: information) associated with this or that risk assessment, are provided to user, … (“In some embodiments, an account discovery system interfaces between an end-user (for example, a consumer) and one or more external accounts of the user to identify accounts of the user based on data items accessed at the external accounts. Multiple data items, which may be accessed or received from one or more third-party entities, such as via a direct application programming interface (API) communication channel, are analyzed to determine whether any of the data items, or combinations of data items, meet rules for addition of the data items to a secure third-party risk item database.”, [005]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11:
Manna discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 10, respectfully:
Manna further discloses
wherein the subsequent user interface comprises a subsequent plurality of user interface elements usable by the first entity to cause the additional first risk assessment data to be received. … (“In some embodiments, an account discovery system interfaces between an end-user (for example, a consumer) and one or more external accounts of the user to identify accounts of the user based on data items accessed at the external accounts. Multiple data items, which may be accessed or received from one or more third-party entities, such as via a direct application programming interface (API) communication channel, are analyzed to determine whether any of the data items, or combinations of data items, meet rules for addition of the data items to a secure third-party risk item database.”, [005]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18:
Manna discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectfully:
Manna further discloses
wherein transmitting the responsive message comprises initiating an interaction using the validated first risk assessment data and the validated second risk assessment data, wherein the interaction includes a request by the first entity for access to one or more computing resources. In some embodiments, an account discovery system interfaces between an end-user (for example, a consumer) and one or more external accounts of the user to identify accounts of the user based on data items accessed at the external accounts. Multiple data items, which may be accessed or received from one or more third-party entities, such as via a direct application programming interface (API) communication channel, are analyzed to determine whether any of the data items, or combinations of data items, meet rules for addition of the data items to a secure third-party risk item database.”, [005]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19:
Manna discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectfully:
Manna further discloses
wherein validating the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data comprises: determining that the first risk assessment data matches the second risk assessment data; and determining, based on the first risk assessment data matching the second risk assessment data, that the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data are valid. (“the current risk score of the user, accessing an item database including information associated with a plurality of items and, for each item, an associated criteria for matching the item with users, querying the item database with at least the current risk score of the user, receiving, in response to said querying the item database, information indicating: a first one or more items matched to the user based on the current risk score, and a second one or more items not matched to the user based on the current risk score.”, [026]).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20:
Manna discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectfully:
Manna further discloses
wherein validating the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data comprises: determining that the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data match third-party risk assessment data; and determining, based on the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data matching the third-party risk assessment data, that the first risk assessment data and the second risk assessment data are valid. (“A data processing system communicates with a secure third-party database to obtain information about a user that is usable to determine one or more items associated with the user. The system then coordinates gathering and identification of additional data relevant to the user from other third-party data sources, to potentially update the user's information stored with the secure third-party database. The updated information may then be accessed at the secure third-party database to determine items associated with the user, which may include additional items in view of the additional data”, [Abstract, publ;ished 06/24/2021]).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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 USC 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 2, 9, and 16 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Manna (US20210194885A1) in view of Olson (US11410230B1).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16:
Manna discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively:
Manna does not expressly disclose, but Olson teaches:
wherein transmitting the responsive message includes transmitting an access permission comprising a cryptographic key, wherein the access permission is used in controlling access of the first entity to one or more interactive computing environments. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include the meaning that cryptography is used to control access regarding this application, … “(In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the access codes include numerical codes or identifiers, but could include any other form of data, such as alphanumeric, encrypted, hashed, etc. data. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, once a particular user is identified in the user lock status & preferences data structure, e.g., by locating a user PID (or other personal identifier 320) received from a merchant POS device or user computing device in the data structure, the access codes for each of multiple credit bureaus are identified and may be used to initiate the requested access controls, such as locking or unlocking the user's credit file, without further involvement from the user.”, [col. 15: 58 - col. 16: 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Manna to incorporate the teachings of Olson because Manna would be more efficient and have better controlled access should it employ cryptology in accessing its risks as done in Olson (".. the access codes for each of multiple credit bureaus are identified and may be used to initiate the requested access controls, such as locking or unlocking the user's credit file, without further involvement from the user.”, [col. 15: 65 - col. 16: 2]).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights