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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on February 23, 2026, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,811 in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0311429 to Barkas et al.
Claims 1, 11, and 20
‘811 Patent
A server computer system, comprising: at least one processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to:
Claim 1: A server computer system, comprising: a processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to:
receive, via the communications module, a signal indicating a data transfer request that includes an amount of a data transfer;
Claim 1: receive, via the communications module and from a third party server computer system, a signal indicating a data transfer request that includes identifying information of a merchant and an amount of the data transfer
responsive to determining that the data transfer is not affordable, generate one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer; and
Claim 1: responsive to determining that the data transfer is not affordable from one of the resource accounts, generate one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer; and
send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to present at least one of the recommendations prior to completion of the data transfer.
Claim 1: send, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a notification overlayed on the modified graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device that includes one of the recommendations to afford the data transfer
Barkas
maintain predictive state information associated with one or more resource accounts, the predictive state information representing anticipated changes to available resources over time;
¶ 45: In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 is structured to access a data source that includes budget information for the customer 101 a (such as anticipated expense data, description, amount, payee, etc.) and determine whether the amount of the proposed transaction 272 exceeds the budget.
analyze the data transfer request based on the predictive state information to determine an affordability of the data transfer;
¶ 45: At 306, the digital funding circuit 244 determines that a first user device, such as user device 102 a, is associated with a user, such as customer 101 a who is unable to afford the proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 accesses the customer account vault 254 and retrieves one or more customer funds account(s) 264 associated with the customer 101 a to obtain a data set on historical financial transactions, such as payments to a third party. The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 identifies a recurring expense from the customer funds account 264, such as, for example, a rent payment, a car loan installment payment, a mortgage payment, etc. The digital funding circuit 244 analyzes the current and/or projected balance of the customer funds account 264 and may determine, based on this evaluation, that the customer 101 a will not be able to cover the proposed transaction in its entirety.
Claims 2 and 12
Barkas
wherein the predictive state information is generated by analyzing historical data transfers associated with the one or more resource accounts.
¶ 45: In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 accesses the customer account vault 254 and retrieves one or more customer funds account(s) 264 associated with the customer 101 a to obtain a data set on historical financial transactions, such as payments to a third party. The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.
Claims 3 and 13
Barkas
wherein analyzing the historical data transfers comprises predicting one or more future data transfers that are likely to occur during a future time period.
¶ 45: The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.
Claims 4 and 14
‘811 Patent
wherein analyzing the data transfer request comprises determining whether a balance of at least one of the one or more resource accounts remains above a predefined threshold over a specified time period after the data transfer.
Claim 8: determine, based on the data budget, whether a balance of the resource account remains above a threshold for a period of time after the data transfer.
Claim 5
‘811 Patent
wherein the one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer include at least one of: combining resources from multiple resource accounts; opening an additional resource account; splitting the data transfer into multiple periodic data transfers; applying loyalty points to offset or reduce an amount of the data transfer; reducing spending within one or more of the resource accounts; increasing a limit of one or more of the resource accounts; or completing the data transfer using a different resource account.
Claim 4: wherein the one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer include at least one of: combining resources from multiple resource accounts; opening an additional resource account; splitting the data transfer into multiple periodic data transfers; applying loyalty points to offset or reduce an amount of the data transfer; reducing spending within one or more of the resource accounts; increasing a limit of one or more of the resource accounts; or completing the data transfer using a different resource account.
Claims 6 and 15
‘811 Patent
wherein the signal causing the computing device to present the at least one of the recommendations causes the computing device to display a notification overlayed on a graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device.
Claim 1: send, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a notification overlayed on the modified graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device that includes one of the recommendations to afford the data transfer
Claims 7 and 16
‘811 Patent
wherein the notification includes at least one selectable interface element configured to toggle between multiple recommendations.
Claim 1: at least one selectable interface element to toggle between one or more other recommendations to afford the data transfer.
Claims 8 and 17
‘811 Patent
receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of one of the recommendations; and
Claim 3: receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of the at least one selectable option to accept one of the recommendations; and
responsive to receiving the signal indicating selection, complete the data transfer based on the selected recommendation.
Claim 3: responsive to receiving the signal indicating selection of the at least one selectable option to accept one of the recommendations, complete the data transfer based on the accepted recommendation.
Claims 9 and 18
‘811 Patent
wherein maintaining the predictive state information comprises engaging a machine learning data budget module to analyze historical data transfers to determine one or more data transfers that are likely to occur.
Claim 9: engage a machine learning data budget module to analyze the historical data transfers to determine one or more data transfers that are likely to occur.
Claims 10 and 19
‘811 Patent
herein generating the one or more recommendations comprises engaging a machine learning module to generate the recommendations based on previous data transfers associated with other resource accounts.
Claim 10: engage a machine learning module to generate the one or more recommendations based on previous data transfers made from one or more other resource accounts.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,586,047 in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0311429 to Barkas et al.
Claims 1, 11, and 20
‘047 Patent
A server computer system, comprising: at least one processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to:
Claim 1: A server computer system, comprising: at least one processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to:
receive, via the communications module, a signal indicating a data transfer request that includes an amount of a data transfer;
Claim 1: receive, via the communications module and from a third party server computer system, a signal indicating a data transfer request that includes identifying information of a merchant and an amount of a data transfer;
responsive to determining that the data transfer is not affordable, generate one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer; and
Claim 1: generate one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer based on determining that the balance does not remain above the threshold; and
send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to present at least one of the recommendations prior to completion of the data transfer.
Claim 1: send, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a notification overlayed on the modified graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device that includes one of the recommendations to afford the data transfer
Barkas
maintain predictive state information associated with one or more resource accounts, the predictive state information representing anticipated changes to available resources over time;
¶ 45: In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 is structured to access a data source that includes budget information for the customer 101 a (such as anticipated expense data, description, amount, payee, etc.) and determine whether the amount of the proposed transaction 272 exceeds the budget.
analyze the data transfer request based on the predictive state information to determine an affordability of the data transfer;
¶ 45: At 306, the digital funding circuit 244 determines that a first user device, such as user device 102 a, is associated with a user, such as customer 101 a who is unable to afford the proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 accesses the customer account vault 254 and retrieves one or more customer funds account(s) 264 associated with the customer 101 a to obtain a data set on historical financial transactions, such as payments to a third party. The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 identifies a recurring expense from the customer funds account 264, such as, for example, a rent payment, a car loan installment payment, a mortgage payment, etc. The digital funding circuit 244 analyzes the current and/or projected balance of the customer funds account 264 and may determine, based on this evaluation, that the customer 101 a will not be able to cover the proposed transaction in its entirety.
Claims 2 and 12
Barkas
wherein the predictive state information is generated by analyzing historical data transfers associated with the one or more resource accounts.
¶ 45: In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 accesses the customer account vault 254 and retrieves one or more customer funds account(s) 264 associated with the customer 101 a to obtain a data set on historical financial transactions, such as payments to a third party. The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.
Claims 3 and 13
Barkas
wherein analyzing the historical data transfers comprises predicting one or more future data transfers that are likely to occur during a future time period.
¶ 45: The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.
Claims 4 and 14
‘047 Patent
wherein analyzing the data transfer request comprises determining whether a balance of at least one of the one or more resource accounts remains above a predefined threshold over a specified time period after the data transfer.
Claim 1: analyze the updated data budget to determine whether a balance of the resource account remains above a predefined threshold over a specified time period after the data transfer;
Claim 5
‘047 Patent
wherein the one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer include at least one of: combining resources from multiple resource accounts; opening an additional resource account; splitting the data transfer into multiple periodic data transfers; applying loyalty points to offset or reduce an amount of the data transfer; reducing spending within one or more of the resource accounts; increasing a limit of one or more of the resource accounts; or completing the data transfer using a different resource account.
Claim 7: wherein the one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer include at least one of: combining resources from multiple resource accounts; opening an additional resource account; splitting the data transfer into multiple periodic data transfers; applying loyalty points to offset or reduce an amount of the data transfer; reducing spending within one or more of the resource accounts; increasing a limit of one or more of the resource accounts; or completing the data transfer using a different resource account.
Claims 6 and 15
‘047 Patent
wherein the signal causing the computing device to present the at least one of the recommendations causes the computing device to display a notification overlayed on a graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device.
Claim 1: send, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a notification overlayed on the modified graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device
Claims 7 and 16
‘047 Patent
wherein the notification includes at least one selectable interface element configured to toggle between multiple recommendations.
Claim 1: at least one selectable interface element to toggle between one or more other recommendations to afford the data transfer.
Claims 8 and 17
‘047 Patent
receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of one of the recommendations; and
Claim 6: receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of the at least one selectable option to accept one of the recommendations; and
responsive to receiving the signal indicating selection, complete the data transfer based on the selected recommendation.
Claim 6: responsive to receiving the signal indicating selection of the at least one selectable option to accept one of the recommendations, complete the data transfer based on the accepted recommendation.
Claims 9 and 18
‘047 Patent
wherein maintaining the predictive state information comprises engaging a machine learning data budget module to analyze historical data transfers to determine one or more data transfers that are likely to occur.
Claim 9: responsive to receiving the signal indicating selection of the at least one selectable option to accept one of the recommendations, complete the data transfer based on the accepted recommendation.
Claims 10 and 19
Barkas
herein generating the one or more recommendations comprises engaging a machine learning module to generate the recommendations based on previous data transfers associated with other resource accounts.
¶ 40: According to various arrangements, the funds AI circuit 246 is structured to capture, track, and/or otherwise access the internet browsing history, email history, telephone call history, SMS/text message history, and/or the geolocation history of the customer 101 a to suggest a proposed funding transaction 272 to the customer 101 a.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “communications module” in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-10 are directed towards a system, claims 11-19 are directed towards a process, and claim 20 is directed towards a manufacture. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 1: Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of making and presenting a recommendation for how to afford a transaction. In particular, the claim recites maintaining predictive state information that represents anticipated changes to available resources over time. The system receives data indicating an amount of a data transfer, i.e., transaction amount. The claim then analyzes the transaction amount based on the predictive state information to determine an affordability of the transaction. Based on the transaction being unaffordable, the system generates a recommendation to afford the transaction. The system then sends a message to another entity presenting the recommendations before completing the transaction. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
at least one processor;
a communications module coupled to the processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to:
maintain predictive state information associated with one or more resource accounts, the predictive state information representing anticipated changes to available resources over time;
receive, via the communications module, a signal indicating a data transfer request that includes an amount of a data transfer;
analyze the data transfer request based on the predictive state information to determine an affordability of the data transfer;
responsive to determining that the data transfer is not affordable, generate one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer; and
send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to present at least one of the recommendations prior to completion of the data transfer.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, communications module, memory, and computing device. However, these additional elements are simply used to implement the identified abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, communications module, memory, and computing device. However, these additional elements are simply used to implement the identified abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 11: Claim 11 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1, and does so in the context of a process. However, claim 11 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 20: Claim 20 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1, and does so in the context of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. However, claim 20 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 2-10 and 12-19: Claims 2-10 and 12-19 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2 and 12 recite the abstract idea of generating the predictive state information by analyzing previous transactions, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities as well as a Mental Process.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the abstract idea of predicting a future transaction likely to occur, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the abstract idea of determining whether a balance of a transaction account remains above a threshold over a specified time period after a transaction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities as well as a Mental Process.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of various recommendations to afford the transaction, such as using funds from multiple accounts, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the result of sending a signal to the computing device and functions that the computing device performs. However, the claimed system simply sends the signal to the computing device. Therefore, the functions performed by the computing device are outside the scope of the claim and fail to recite patent eligible subject matter. Further, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 7 and 16 recite the abstract idea of an element to view multiple recommendations to afford the transaction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Further, the element is displayed by the computing device, which is outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 17 recite receiving a selection of one of the recommendations and completing the transaction based on the selection, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 9 and 18 recite analyzing historical transactions to determine transactions that are likely to occur, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities as well as a Mental Process. The claims also recite the additional element of using a machine learning module to perform these abstract ideas. However, this additional element fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the abstract idea of generating the recommendations based on historical transactions, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. The claims also recite the additional element of using a machine learning module to perform these abstract ideas. However, this additional element fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0311429 to Barkas et al.
Per Claim 1: Barkas discloses:
A server computer system, comprising: at least one processor; a communications module coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to: (see Barkas at ¶ 35: Electronic circuits of the provider computing system 140 include the processing circuit 232, the network interface 238, the notification circuit 242, the digital funding circuit 244, and the funds artificial intelligence (AI) circuit 246.)
maintain predictive state information associated with one or more resource accounts, the predictive state information representing anticipated changes to available resources over time; (see Barkas at ¶ 45: In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 is structured to access a data source that includes budget information for the customer 101 a (such as anticipated expense data, description, amount, payee, etc.) and determine whether the amount of the proposed transaction 272 exceeds the budget.)
receive, via the communications module, a signal indicating a data transfer request that includes an amount of a data transfer; (see Barkas at ¶ 44: In some arrangements, the customer 101 a supplies the information on the at least one proposed transaction 272 by, for example, using a user interface of the user device 102 a to enter the information, including, for example, transaction description, transaction date, transaction amount, payee, etc.)
analyze the data transfer request based on the predictive state information to determine an affordability of the data transfer; (see Barkas at ¶ 45: At 306, the digital funding circuit 244 determines that a first user device, such as user device 102 a, is associated with a user, such as customer 101 a who is unable to afford the proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 accesses the customer account vault 254 and retrieves one or more customer funds account(s) 264 associated with the customer 101 a to obtain a data set on historical financial transactions, such as payments to a third party. The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 identifies a recurring expense from the customer funds account 264, such as, for example, a rent payment, a car loan installment payment, a mortgage payment, etc. The digital funding circuit 244 analyzes the current and/or projected balance of the customer funds account 264 and may determine, based on this evaluation, that the customer 101 a will not be able to cover the proposed transaction in its entirety.)
responsive to determining that the data transfer is not affordable, generate one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer; and (see Barkas at ¶ 43: At 304, the digital funding circuit 244 obtains, generates or predicts a proposed transaction set 262. The proposed transaction set 262 has at least one proposed transaction 272. Herein, a “proposed transaction” is defined as an assistance transaction between one or more customers 101 n. For example, in an example arrangement, customer 101 a may require funding to cover an expected purchase or expense. Customer 101 b and/or customer 101 c may provide the funding to customer 101 a. See also ¶ 53: At 322, the digital funding circuit 244 generates a second funding transaction 274. In some arrangements, the funds AI circuit 246 calculates the proposed funding amount for the sponsor/supplier based on the financial position of the customer 101 a (budget, account balance, etc.) and/or based on a calculation of whether a shortfall remains after an existing member of the digital funding group 110 has already agreed to provide assistance to cover a portion of the amount of the proposed transaction 274.)
send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to present at least one of the recommendations prior to completion of the data transfer. (see Barkas at ¶ 44: The proposed transaction 272 may be presented to the customer 101 a for approval through the user interface of the user device 102 a.)
Per Claim 11: Claim 11 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1 and does so in the context of a process which Barkas discloses (see ¶ 9: FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for facilitating automatic anonymous group funding according to some arrangements.)
Per Claim 20: Claim 20 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1 and does so in the context of a non-transitory computer readable storage which Barkas discloses (see ¶ 76: Each memory device may include non-transient volatile storage media, non-volatile storage media, non-transitory storage media (e.g., one or more volatile and/or non-volatile memories), etc.)
Per Claims 2 and 12: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 2 and 12 depend, respectively. Barkas further discloses:
wherein the predictive state information is generated by analyzing historical data transfers associated with the one or more resource accounts. (see Barkas at ¶ 45: In some arrangements, the digital funding circuit 244 accesses the customer account vault 254 and retrieves one or more customer funds account(s) 264 associated with the customer 101 a to obtain a data set on historical financial transactions, such as payments to a third party. The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.)
Per Claims 3 and 13: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 12, from which claims 3 and 13 depend, respectively. Barkas further discloses:
wherein analyzing the historical data transfers comprises predicting one or more future data transfers that are likely to occur during a future time period. (see Barkas at ¶ 45: The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.)
Per Claim 5: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. Barkas further discloses:
wherein the one or more recommendations to afford the data transfer include at least one of: combining resources from multiple resource accounts; opening an additional resource account; splitting the data transfer into multiple periodic data transfers; applying loyalty points to offset or reduce an amount of the data transfer; reducing spending within one or more of the resource accounts; increasing a limit of one or more of the resource accounts; or completing the data transfer using a different resource account. (see Barkas at ¶ 67: Referring to FIG. 6A, the user interface 600 a is configured to present a new proposed funding notification to the customer 101 a of the digital funding group 110. In the example shown, customer 101 a is the party receiving assistance. The interface 600 a comprises various controls for providing information and receiving input from the customer 101 a. For example, a text field on the user interface 600 a may be configured to render a funding notification as described, for example in reference to step 314 of FIG. 3. In the example the notification may let customer 101 a know that two parties have agreed to provide assistance and that the residual responsibility of the customer 101 a is the difference between the total amount of assistance provided and the amount of the proposed transaction 272. In some arrangements, the proposed transaction 272 may have been modified as a result of finding an alternative supplier by a customer 101 b and/or by the funds AI circuit 246 (as described, for example, in reference to FIG. 4B). For example, the payee, amount, etc. of the proposed transaction 272 may be modified. The customer 101 a may use interactive controls 602 a and 602 b to accept or edit the terms of the notification.)
Per Claims 6 and 15: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 6 and 15 depend, respectively. Barkas further discloses:
wherein the signal causing the computing device to present the at least one of the recommendations causes the computing device to display a notification overlayed on a graphical user interface currently displayed on the computing device. (see Barkas at ¶ 29: In some embodiments, these processes are configured to be executed in the background so that a new notification, when it arrives, is immediately displayed to the user (for example, as a pop-up notification) without waiting for the previous task to complete.)
Per Claims 9 and 18: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 9 and 18 depend, respectively. Barkas further discloses:
wherein maintaining the predictive state information comprises engaging a machine learning data budget module to analyze historical data transfers to determine one or more data transfers that are likely to occur. (see Barkas at ¶ 45: The funds AI circuit 246 may analyze the historical financial transactions to identify spending pattern(s) of the customer 101 a and use the spending pattern(s) to predict the at least one proposed transaction 272.)
Per Claims 10 and 19: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 10 and 19 depend, respectively. Barkas further discloses:
wherein generating the one or more recommendations comprises engaging a machine learning module to generate the recommendations based on previous data transfers associated with other resource accounts. (see Barkas at ¶ 40: According to various arrangements, the funds AI circuit 246 is structured to capture, track, and/or otherwise access the internet browsing history, email history, telephone call history, SMS/text message history, and/or the geolocation history of the customer 101 a to suggest a proposed funding transaction 272 to the customer 101 a.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkas as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0020098 to De Vos et al.
Per Claims 4 and 14: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 4 and 14 depend, respectively. However, Barkas fails to disclose but De Vos, an analogous art of budgeting, discloses:
wherein analyzing the data transfer request comprises determining whether a balance of at least one of the one or more resource accounts remains above a predefined threshold over a specified time period after the data transfer. (see De Vos at ¶ 119: In some embodiments, this combination may be augmented with Elapsed and Duration rules to periodically determine and make contributions if the account balance remains above a given level over time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkas so that the system determines whether an account has a balance higher than a threshold using the techniques disclosed in De Vos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure that the balance falls too low to complete future purchases.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkas as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0200162 to Pourfallah et al.
Per Claims 7 and 16: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 7 and 16 depend, respectively. However, Barkas fails to disclose but Pourfallah, an analogous art of transaction recommendations, discloses:
wherein the notification includes at least one selectable interface element configured to toggle between multiple recommendations. (see Pourfallah at ¶ 80: In further implementations, the recommendation may be performed and rendered on the web enabled mobile computing device for approval by the user. See also FIG. 5E: Scroll arrows at top and bottom of recommended accounts to use)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkas so that a user may switch between multiple proposed funding transactions using a graphical user interface using the techniques disclosed in Pourfallah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to present multiple options to the user.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkas as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,636,087 to Bardouille et al.
Per Claims 8 and 17: Barkas discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, from which claims 8 and 17 depend, respectively. Barkas further discloses:
receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of one of the recommendations; and (see Barkas at ¶ 68: An example interface of the arrangement of FIG. 6B has all the relevant information needed by the customer to accept 620 a or seek additional funds 620 b. Thus everything is carefully planned and consolidated into a given interface, which further includes user interactive elements that allow the user to accept the assistance.)
However, Barkas fails to disclose but Bardouille, an analogous art of budgeting, discloses:
responsive to receiving the signal indicating selection, complete the data transfer based on the selected recommendation. (see Bardouille at 10:20-23: The options may be presented to the user, for example, via selectable buttons or links to allow the user to control the system to perform one of the options with a single selection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkas so that the system completes the transaction using the selected funding transaction as disclosed in Bardouille. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to actually complete the purchase.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0101302 discloses a method for harnessing a connected network to securely verify and execute a transaction is provided. The method may include requesting a PIN from a mobile device. The request may be transmitted via a USSD message. The method may also include receiving the PIN from the mobile device. The PIN may be received via a response to the USSD message. The method may also include authenticating the mobile device. The method may also include accessing a third-party network to verify an authentication status of the mobile device. The third-party network may include a plurality of IoT endpoints. Each IoT endpoint may include a stored verification usage process. The stored verification usage process may relate to a user associated with the mobile device. The method may also include executing the transaction upon receipt of an authentication signal from the third-party network.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0124541 discloses systems, software, and computer-implemented methods for implementing a data transfer control based on information received from connected devices. In one instance, operations include loading an expected usage amount for a group of connected devices. Signals representing actual usage amounts associated with the group are received from at least device in the group. The actual usage amounts can be compared to the expected usage amount. An authorization of at least one payment-related action associated with the at least one group of connected devices is automatically transmitted to a payment system in response to determining that the usage amount is less than or equal to the expected amount, and at least one instruction to perform a corrective action associated with the group is automatically transmitted to at least one connected device of the group in response to determining that the actual amount exceeds the expected amount.
U.S. Patent No. 11,127,075 discloses methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media for an automated financial management system. One of the methods includes receiving data indicating a list of historic transactions of a user from a plurality of financial institutions. The method includes identifying at least one predicted unexpected expense based on providing at least some of the data to a trained machine-learning model, the trained machine-learning model trained using historic transaction data of a plurality of other users. The method includes determining a plan to account for the unexpected expense. The method also includes automatically transferring an amount based on the plan.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0030994 discloses a budget monitoring, alerting and bill payment facilitation system retrieves macro-budgeting information associated with a user, where the macro-budgeting information includes a plurality of budget categories each having an associated budget amount corresponding to a macro time period, divides the budget amount corresponding to the macro time period into a plurality of micro budget amounts corresponding to a plurality of micro time periods, and presents, to the user by a mobile device, micro-budgeting information corresponding to at least one of the plurality of micro budget amounts or its corresponding micro time period. In some embodiments, the system retrieves user data, determines the user may be experiencing a life event based on the user data, where the micro-budgeting information is based on the determination that the user may be experiencing a life event, and confirms that the user is experiencing a life event.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0258022 discloses methods and systems are provided for providing purchase recommendations and a budget to a user. The purchase recommendations can be for discretionary products for the user or for gifts for others. The purchase recommendations and the budget can be based upon the amount of discretionary money available for the user to make such purchases and for whom the purchases are to be made. The purchase recommendations and the budget can be further based upon purchase histories, wish lists, and calendars.
U.S. Patent No. 10,943,308 discloses a pervasive advisor for major purchases and other expenditures may detect that a customer is contemplating a major purchase (e.g., through active listening). The advisor may assist the customer with the timing and manner of making the purchase in a way that is financially sensible in view of the customer's financial situation. A customer may be provided with dynamically-updated information in response to recent actions that may affect an approved loan amount and/or interest rate. Underwriting of a loan may be triggered based on the geo-location of the user. Financial advice may be provided to customers to help them meet their goals using information obtained from third party sources, such as purchase options based on particular goals. The pervasive advisor may thus intervene to assist with budgeting, financing, and timing of major expenditures based on the customer's location and on the customer's unique and changing circumstances.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0250421 discloses systems, methods, and computer program products are provided for a dynamic determination of the budget impact on expenditures, such as expenditures, potential expenditures, cost adjustments and the like. Implemented in conjunction with a budget tracking system, the budget impact determiner of the present invention may provide for both short-term budget impact and long-term budget impact. In addition, certain embodiments provide for recognizing recurring expenditures and automatically providing the user with the budget impact of such recurring expenditures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights