/// /Y’ 07
`
`PTOlSBl30 (09-03)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2006. OMB 0651-0O31%
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;_ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`-. I: gaunt "on -0: .|‘
`.9: i
`-
`--.0u= .-no
`ber.
`
`1'.‘
`
`-
`
`'-,-7 .-r.'a-_-1- A
`
`o
`
`99
`
`-
`
`,n-
`
`or
`
`,-
`
`-
`
`-o_
`
`'1’ o
`
`* 9-
`
`
`
`Mail Stop RCE
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`A /ication Number
`F.-in
`Fmamea
` Address to:
`An? Unit
`
`
`VA
`‘ta.
`.1».
`Attorney Docket ~umber
`This is a Request for Continued Exnation (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 of the above-identified application.
`
`Request for Continued Examination (RCE) practice under 37 CFR 1.114 does not apply to any utility or plant application filed prior to June 8,
`1995. or to any design application. See Instruction Sheet for RCEs (not to be submitted to the USPTO) on page 2.
`
`
`
`11/293350
`
`Submission re uired under 37 CFR 1.11 ‘ Note: If the RCE is proper. any previously filed unentered amendments and
`amendments enclosed with the RCE will be entered in the order in which they were filed unless applicant instructs otherwise. If
`applicant does not wish to have any previously filed unentered amendment(s) entered, applicant must request non-entry of such
`amendment(s).
`
`a D Previously submitted. if a final Office action is outstanding, any amendments filed after the final Office action may be
`'
`considered as a submission even if this box is not checked.
`
`b.
`
`i‘ D Consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Rely Brief previously filed on
`ii. El Other
`Enclosed
`Amendment/Reply
`i.
`ii. E] Affidavit(s)/Declaration(s)
`2. Miscellaneous
`
`lnfonnation Disclosure Statement (IDS)
`jji_ El
`iv. C] Other
`
`3-
`
`b_
`
`Suspension of action on the above-identified application is requested under 37 CFR 1.103(c) for a
`period of
`months. (Period of suspension shall not exceed 3 months; Fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i) required)
`
`Other
`
`The RCE fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e) is required by 37 CFR 1.114 when the RCE is filed.
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge the following fees, or credit any gyegpayments -191” I WWW 11 fl-E,.3_4 459
`Deposit Account No.
`50-0534
`W "W
`tt::b.'t.‘-til
`
`Ell
`
`495,36 up
`
`l_—__i RCE fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(e)
`ii. E] Extension of time fee (37 cm 1.135 and 1.17)
`m_ El Other
`b. 2'
`Check in the amount of$
`
`405.00
`
`c. [3 Payment by credit card (Fonn PTO-2038 enclosed)
`WARNING: lnforrnation on this form may become public. Credit card information should not
`be included on this form. Provide credit card infonnation and authorization on PTO-2038.
`
`SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, OR AGENT REQUIRED
`Donald R. 80 s
`Reistration No. Attome /Aent
`11/13/2007
`
`35 074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE F MAILING OR TRANSMISSION
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope
`addressed to: Mail Stop RCE, Commissioner for Patents, P. O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or facsimile transmitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on the date shown below.
`
`
`I She“ Beaslv
`
`
`.
`
`1 1/13/2007
`T
`= tain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.114. The information is require -
`to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CF 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 12 minutes to complete, including
`gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the
`amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief lnfonnation Officer, U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, US. Department of Commerce, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS
`ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail Stop RCE, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`If you need assistance in completing the form, call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`(
`
`Plaid 1026
`Plaid 1026
`
`

`
`O
`
`\\\g\\ \
`
`/‘‘7.%
`,5 1&1
`
`"’7a mAo€"‘"
`
`u,._ IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`5
`' Art Unit: 2176
`Examiner: Nguyen, Maikhanh
`
`In Re:
`Case:
`
`Ramakrishna Satyavolu
`P3977CIP
`
`Serial No.:
`Filed:
`
`11/293,350
`12/01/2005
`
`Subject:
`
`Categorization of Summarized Information
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Response D
`
`1
`
`

`
`Claims
`
`All of the claims standing for examination are reproduced below with appropriate status
`
`indication.
`
`1. (Previously presented) A system tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium
`
`for categorizing transactions, comprising;
`
`a collection function gathering information concerning transactions, including at
`
`least date, description and amount of the transactions, for a particular person or
`
`enterprise; and
`
`a processing function categorizing individual ones of the collected transactions
`
`according to at least part of the transaction description;
`
`wherein the collection function automatically navigates to and retrieves the information
`
`concerning transactions from third-party Intemet-connected web sites adapted to provide
`
`account information to the particular person or enterprise.
`
`2. (Original) The system of claim 1 further comprising a compilation function
`
`summarizing transactions in individual categories.
`
`3. (Original) The system of claim 2 further comprising a reporting function reporting the
`
`summarized transactions to the particular person or enterprise.
`
`4. (Previously presented) The system of claim 1 wherein categorization is done according
`
`to category definitions entered by the particular person or on behalf of the enterprise.
`
`5. (Previously presented) The system of claim 1 wherein categorization is done for a first
`
`plurality of persons or enterprises subscribing to the system according to category
`
`definitions entered by a second plurality of persons or enterprises subscribing to the
`
`system.
`
`

`
`6. (Original) The system of claim 1 wherein categories are developed from information
`
`taken from communication between clients and the system.
`
`7. (Original) The system of claim 6 wherein a probability algorithm is used in developing
`
`categories.
`
`8. (Previously presented) The system of claim 1 wherein identifiers for categories are
`
`periodically amended according to further information that is collected and processed.
`
`9. (Canceled)
`
`10. (Previously presented) The system of claim 1 wherein the system reports to clients
`
`through the Internet network.
`
`11. (Original) The system of claim 2 wherein the system further comprises a function
`
`storing past transaction history associated with the particular person or enterprise.
`
`12. (Previously presented) The system of claim 11 wherein the past transaction history is
`
`used to predict future transaction statistical information.
`
`13. (Previously presented) A method for categorizing transactions using proprietary
`
`software tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium, comprising:
`
`(a) automatically navigating to third-party Intemet-connected web sites and
`
`gathering information concerning transactions by a collection function of the software
`
`from the Intemet-connected web sites adapted to provide account information for a
`
`particular person or enterprise, said information including at least date, description and
`
`amount of the transactions;
`
`

`
`(b) categorizing individual ones of the collected transactions according to at least
`
`part of the transaction description by a processing fiinction; and
`
`(c) reporting the categorized transactions to the particular person or enterprise by
`
`a reporting function.
`
`14. (Original) The method of claim 13 further comprising summarizing transactions in
`
`individual categories by a compilation function.
`
`15. (Canceled)
`
`16. (Original) The method of claim 13 wherein categorization is done according to
`
`category definition entered by the particular person or on behalf of the enterprise.
`
`17. (Original) The method of claim 13 wherein categorization is done for a first plurality
`
`of persons or enterprises according to category definition entered by a second plurality of
`
`persons or enterprises.
`
`18. (Original) The method of claim 13 wherein categories are developed from
`
`information taken from communication between clients and the system.
`
`19. (Original) The method of claim 18 wherein a probability algorithm is used in
`
`developing categories.
`
`20. (Previously presented) The method of claim 13 wherein identifiers for categories are
`
`periodically amended according to further information that is collected and processed.
`
`21. (Canceled)
`
`

`
`22. (Previously presented) The method of claim 13 wherein the system reports to clients
`
`through the Internet network.
`
`\
`
`23. (Original) The method of claim 14 wherein the method further comprises a step for
`
`storing past transaction history associated with the particular person or enterprise.
`
`24. (Previously presented) The method of claim 23 wherein the past transaction history is
`
`used to predict future transaction statistical information.
`
`

`
`/
`
`Remarks
`
`The present response is to the Office Action mailed the above-referenced
`
`case on August 23, 2007.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`4. Claims 1-4, 10-14, 16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Stride et al. (US 6792422) in view of Schutzer et al. (US5920848).
`
`The examiner states:
`
`As to claim 1:
`
`Stride discloses a system tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium for
`
`categorizing transactions (see Title; see Column 1, Lines 7-12. Stride discloses this
`
`limitation, as clearly indicated in the cited text, comprising:
`
`a collection function gathering information concerning transactions, including at
`
`least date, description and amount of the transactions, for a particular person or enterprise
`
`(see Figure 3; see Column 2, Line 66 through Column 4, Line 18 -. Stride discloses this
`
`limitation in that system collects the transaction information displayed in Figure 3); and
`
`a processing fimction categorizing individual ones of the collected transactions
`
`according to at least part of the transaction description (see Figures 2 and 3; see Column
`
`4, Line 19 through Column 6, Line 23 + Stride discloses this limitation in that system
`
`categorizes the collected transactions displayed in Figure 3 based on the descriptions of
`
`the transactions),
`
`wherein the collection function navigates to and retrieves the information
`
`concerning transactions from third-party Intemet-connected web sites adapted to provide
`
`account information (see Column 3, Lines 10-12; see Column 3, Lines 52-64 -. Stride
`
`6
`
`

`
`discloses this limitation in that system comprises an input/output system and operates on
`
`the Internet).
`
`Stride fails to expressly disclose how the "information concerning transactions" is
`
`gathered. Also, Stride provides no details regarding to whom the "information
`
`concerning transactions" is provided. In terms of the claim language, Stride fails to
`
`expressly disclose wherein the collection function automatically retrieves the
`
`information concerning transactions from third-party Intemet-connected web sites
`
`adapted to provide account information to the particular person or enterprise.
`
`Schutzer teaches a system tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium for
`
`categorizing transactions (see Figures 1, 2, 9, 20 and 21; see Colurrm 3, Lines 33- 34; see
`
`Column 6, Line 7 through Column 7, Line 25 + Schutzer teaches this limitation in that
`
`the system operates on a computer network and classifies financial transactions into
`
`categories), comprising a collection function [that] automatically navigates to and
`
`retrieves information concerning transactions from Intemet-connected web sites adapted
`
`to provide account information to a person or enterprise (see Column 3, Line 24 through
`
`Column 5, Line 17 + Schutzer teaches this limitation in that the system automatically
`
`navigates and collects information related-to a user's financial transactions using servers,
`
`clients and intelligent agents, and presents the information to the user), for the purpose of
`
`using financial transaction information to generate userspecific profiles, reports, alerts,
`
`alarms and reminders (see Column 5, Lines 8-17).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made to modify the system, disclosed in Stride, to include: a
`
`collection function [that] automatically navigates to and retrieves the information
`
`concerning transactions from third-party Intemet-connected web sites adapted to provide
`
`account information to the particular person or enterprise, for the purpose of using
`
`

`
`financial transaction information to generate user-specific profiles, reports, alerts, alarms
`
`and reminders, as taught in Schutzer.
`
`Applicant's response
`
`Applicant recites in claim 1, immediately after the preamble, a collection function
`
`gathering information concerning transactions. The examiner cites Stride Fig. 3; col. 2,
`
`line 66 through Col. 4, line 18, saying that Stride discloses this limitation in that system
`collects the transaction information displayed in Figure 3.
`
`Applicant urges that Col 2 In 66 to col 4 line 18 of Stride merely recites the physical
`
`architecture of the computer used in Stride; it says nothing whatsoever about Fig. 3 or a
`
`collection function. In fact, Stride does not teach a collection function, but rather starts
`
`from the situation where data such as that shown in Fig. 3 is available and then discusses
`
`why the invention of Stride can provide a better method of categorization than methods in
`
`the art, such as that taught by Chancey et al. (Col 1, lines 15-48). Furthermore, Fig. 3
`
`does not disclose anything other than a form that transaction data in the prior art could
`
`take; there is no discussion anywhere in Stride of how that data was obtained. Note that
`
`the existence of a set of data on a computer (this can reasonably be inferred from Stride,
`
`and is the basis for the Examiner's assertion that Stride teaches a collection fimction) does‘
`not imply that the dataiwas collected by the computer. The word "collect" is defined
`
`variously as "get or gather together", "assemble together” Answer.com defines collect
`
`several ways, such as:
`
`To bring together in a group or mass; gather.
`
`To accumulate as a hobby or for study.
`
`To call for and obtain payment of: collect taxes.
`
`To recover control of: collect one 's emotions.
`
`To call for (someone); pick up: collected the children and drove home.
`
`

`
`If a user manually downloads a file that has the data, then the computer. does not have a
`
`"collection fimction"; the file that was downloaded was a unitary object and was not
`
`"collected". "A collection fimction for gathering transactions", especially when viewed
`
`in terms of the wherein clause, clearly refers to an automated collection of a plurality of
`
`data elements -- again, Stride STARTS WITH DATA ALEADY IN HAND and then
`
`purports to categorize it.
`
`’
`
`Schutzer does teach a collection function (col 7, lines 34-42), but the collection function
`
`is manual. This is reinforced at col. 9 line 66 through col 10 line 3; as indicated at col 9
`
`line 54, it is the user who communicates with the bank software via an intemet
`
`connection and thus the gathering is not automated.
`
`So neither Stride nor Schuster teach a collection function in the claimed sense.
`
`Applicant's claim 1 recites that the collection function automatically navigates to and
`
`retrieves the information concerning transactions from third-party Intemet-connected web
`
`sites. The examiner relies on Stride col 3 lines 10-12; col 3 lines 52-64, and states that
`
`Stride discloses this limitation in that system comprises an input/output system and
`
`operates on the Internet
`
`The applicant urges with regard to Stride, that merely reciting that a computer has a BIOS
`
`(col 3 lines 10-12) and may be connected to a network (col 3 lines 52-64) [note at col 3
`
`line 52 the Stride recites the computer can operate in a networked environment] does n_ot
`
`teach that the computer navigates to third-party web sites to get financial data any more
`
`than it teaches that the computer navigates to the SETI@Home web site to get
`
`astronomical data.
`
`With regard to Schutzer, further note that col 1 1, lines 21-48 further illustrates the point
`
`that, while the data may be obtained from a bank intemet-connected web site, it is always
`
`

`
`the user that does so ("Via the network 6, the user.downloads data files...the primary bank
`
`server 4 downloads the information upon request by the user... This downloaded data file
`
`42 is incorporated 44 by the user into the account files..." there is nothing automated in
`
`the Internet access and data downloads in Schutzer.
`
`So it is quite clear that at least the limitations dealt with immediately above are not met
`
`by the combination of Stride and Schutzer.
`
`Claim 1 is thus demonstrated to be patentable over the combination of Stride and
`
`Schutzer, and claims 2-8 and 10-12 depended from claim 1 or through other claims from
`
`claim 1 are patentable at least as depended from a patentable claim
`
`Claim 13 is a method claim incorporating essentially the same limitations as claim 1, and
`
`is patentable over the l03(a) rejection combining Stride and Schutzer by the same
`
`rationale presented above on behalf of claim 1.
`
`Claims 14, 16-20, and 22-24, depended from claim 13 or through intermediary claims
`
`from claim 13, are now patentable at least as depended from a patentable claim.
`
`5. Claims 5-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Stride, in view of Schutzer, and further in view of Triggs ( U.S. Publication No.
`
`US 200310204485).
`
`Applicant's response
`
`This rejection deals with depended claims shown to patentable above, and is therefore
`
`l’l’l00t.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Summary
`
`As all of the claims standing for examination have been shown to be patentable as
`
`amended and argued above over the art of record, applicant respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration, and that the present case be passed quickly to issue. If there are any time
`
`extensions needed beyond any extension specifically requested with this response, such
`
`extension of time is hereby requested. If there are any fees due beyond any fees paid
`
`with this amendment, authorization is given to deduct such fees from deposit account 50-
`
`0534.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Ramakrishna Satyavolu
`
`By [.'I)ana£d :78. fI3ggQ[
`Donald R. Boys
`Reg. No. 35,074
`
`Central Coast Patent Agency, Inc.
`3 Hangar Way, Suite D
`Watsonville, CA 95076
`
`(831) 768-1755
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Certificate of Express Mailing
`
`"Express Mail" Mailing Label Number: EM059379932US
`Date of Deposit: 11/13/2007
`Ref: Case Docket No.: P3977CIP
`
`Application of: Ramakrishna Satyavolu
`Serial Number: 11/293,350
`Filing Date: 12/01/2005
`Title of Case: Categorization of Summarized Information
`
`I hereby certify that the attached papers are being deposited with the United States Postal Service
`"Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" service under 37 C.F.R. 1.10 on the date indicated
`above and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`.°‘S""‘.°’!"t“
`
`Response D.
`RCE Transmittal.
`
`Duplicate RCE Transmittal.
`Check for fees in the amount of $405.00.
`
`Certificate of express mailing.
`Postcard listing contents.
`
`Sheri Beasley
`
`(Typed or printed name of erson mailing paper or fee)
`
` (Signature of person mailing
`
`12
`
`12