`
`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 Patent
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Response G
`
`(cid:20)
`1
`
`(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:22)
`Plaid 1033
`
`
`
`In the claims:
`
`All of the claims standing for examination are presented below with appropriate status
`
`indication.
`
`1. (Previously presented) A system tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium
`
`for sorting and reporting transaction information, comprising;
`
`a collection function navigating to and retrieving transaction information
`
`associated with a specific person or enterprise from third-party Internet-connected web
`
`sites, the transaction information including at least date, description and amount of the
`
`transactions;
`
`an input function enabling a client to provide to the system a request for a
`
`summary of transactions over a specific range of dates, according to a definition of
`
`purpose of transaction;
`
`a processing function parsing the collected transaction descriptions for purpose,
`
`using pre-stored description characteristics associated with purpose, and summarizing
`
`those transactions that meet the purpose and fall into the date range; and
`
`a reporting function for providing the summarized transactions to the specific
`
`person or enterprise.
`
`2. (Previously presented) The system of claim l wherein the reporting function provides a
`
`total transaction expenditure amount with the summarized transactions.
`
`3-4. (Cancelled)
`
`5. (Previously presented) The system of claim l wherein a summary is provided for a first
`
`plurality of persons or enterprises subscribing to the system according to requests entered
`
`by a second plurality of persons or enterprises subscribing to the system.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`6. (Previously presented) The system of claim 1 wherein description characteristics are
`
`developed from information taken from communication between clients and the system.
`
`7. (Previously presented) The system of claim 6 wherein a probability algorithm is used
`
`in developing description characteristics.
`
`8. (Previously presented) The system of claim 1 wherein description characteristics 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.
`
`ll. (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 ll wherein the past transaction history is
`
`used to predict future transaction statistical information.
`
`13. (Currently amended) A method for sorting and reporting transaction information
`
`using proprietary software tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium,
`
`comprising:
`
`(a) automatically navigating to and retrieving transaction information associated
`
`with a specific person or enterprise from third-party Intemet-connected web sites and
`
`gathering information concerning transactions by a collection function of the software
`
`said information including at least date, description and amount of the transactions;
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`(b) requesting a summary of transactions by a client via an input function of the
`
`software over a specific range of dates, according to a definition of purpose of
`
`transactions;
`
`(c) parsing the collected transaction descriptions for purpose, via a processing
`
`function of the software using pre-stored description characteristics associated with
`
`purpose, and summarizing those transactions that meet the purpose and fall into the date
`
`range; and
`
`[[(c)]] (d)_reporting the summarized transactions to the particular person or
`
`enterprise by a reporting function.
`
`l4. (Previously presented) The method of claim l3 wherein the reporting function
`
`provides a total transaction expenditure amount with the summarized transactions.
`
`l5-l6. (Cancelled)
`
`l7. (Previously presented) The method of claim l3 wherein a summary is provided for a
`
`first plurality of persons or enterprises according to category definition entered by a
`
`second plurality of persons or enterprises.
`
`l8. (Previously presented) The method of claim l3 wherein description characteristics are
`
`developed from information taken from communication between clients and the system.
`
`19. (Previously presented) The method of claim 18 wherein a probability algorithm is
`
`used in developing description characteristics.
`
`20. (Previously presented) The method of claim l3 wherein description characteristics 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.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Remarks
`
`The present Response is to the Office Action mailed 03/31/2009. Claims 1, 2, 5-8,
`
`10-14, 17-20, and 22-24 are presented for examination.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(e) as being anticipated by Schrader et al. (US 5903881 A — filed
`
`06/05/1997).
`
`The Examiner states:
`
`As to claim 13:
`
`Schrader teaches a method for sorting and reporting transaction information using
`
`proprietary software tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium [The
`
`personal online finance software product executes on client or user computer and
`
`is coupled over a network to a computer system of a bank or otherfinancial
`
`institution; See Col. 7, lines 59-64. See also, Fig. 7], comprising:
`
`0
`
`automatically navigating to and retrieving transaction information associated with
`
`a specific person or enterprise from third-party Intemet-connected web sites and
`
`gathering information concerning transactions by a collection function of the
`
`software, said information including at least date, description and amount of the
`
`transactions [The personal onlinefinance software product executes on client or
`
`user computer and is coupled over a network to a computer system ofa bank or
`
`otherfinancial institution...Most transaction instructions I 69 will include a
`
`description I 72 and an amount I 73...Each transaction 180 is listed with
`
`descriptive information about the transactions. This information preferably
`
`includes the transaction date 183, transaction type 185, an amount 19], and a
`
`description I 8 7 which identifies typically the payee or other useful information.,'
`
`See Col. 7, lines 61-64; Col. 8, lines 26-37; and ol.9, lines 6- I4];
`
`
`
`Applicant responds
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees that Schrader teaches automatically navigating to
`
`and retrieving transaction information. Applicant argues that a personal online finance
`
`software product of Schrader, which executes on client or user computer and is coupled
`
`over a network to a computer system of a bank or other financial institution, cannot
`
`possibly read on applicant’s clear limitation of software for automatically navigating to
`
`and retrieving transaction information from a plurality of Web sites.
`
`The Examiner continues, stating Schrader teaches
`
`0
`
`requesting a summary of transactions by a client via an input function of the
`
`software over a specific range of dates, according to a definition of purpose of
`
`transactions [Fig. 6 shows an interface for downloading an account history
`
`information associated with an individual. Ifa client wants "to download a
`
`shorter range than shown, enter the From and To dates", the interface allows the
`
`client to request his/her account history information by entering a date range; See
`
`also, Col. 10, line 33—Col. 11, line 14];
`
`Applicant responds
`
`Applicant argues that Schrader is limited to requesting transactions according to
`
`date range, only, and fails to teach requesting a summary of transactions according to
`
`purpose, as claimed. Applicant’s claim 13, clearly recites that not only does the user
`
`request a summary of transactions according to date, but also according to a definition of
`
`purpose of transactions. Applicant points out that purpose refers to a reason for
`
`transaction as understood by those with skill in the art and as taught in applicant’s
`
`invention. The Examiner may not simply ignore this clear limitation when rejecting
`
`applicant’s claims.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`The Examiner continues, stating Schrader teaches
`
`parsing the collected transaction descriptions for purpose, Via a processing
`
`function of the software using pre-stored description characteristics associated
`
`with purpose [Fig. 6 shows an interface for downloading an account history
`
`information associated with an individual. When "the date range" is entered and
`
`the "Download" button is clicked, a summary ofthe transactions within the date
`
`range will be generatedfor downloading/displaying; See also, Col. 10, line 33-
`
`Col. 11, line 14]; and
`
`Applicant responds
`
`As argued above, “a date range” as taught in Schrader cannot read on “purpose”
`
`as taught and claimed in applicant’s invention. Further, applicant points out that the
`
`claim recites; “parsing the collected transaction descriptions for purpose, Via a processing
`
`function of the software using pre-stored description characteristics associated with
`
`purpose, and summarizing those transactions that meet the purpose and fall into the date
`
`range” The Examiner has not addressed the claim limitation including pre-stored
`
`description characteristics associated with purpose. Therefore, Schrader fails to teach
`
`this limitation.
`
`The Examiner continues, stating Schrader teaches
`
`summarizing those transactions that meet the purpose and fall into the date range;
`
`and reporting the summarized transactions to the particular person or enterprise
`
`by a reporting function [A report generation module generates reports, such as
`
`summaries ofthe transactions, by date; See Col. l3, lines 42-44. See also, Fig. 6
`
`shows an interface for downloading an account history. The interface allows
`
`downloading the account information associated with an individual by entering
`
`"the From and To dates". When "the date range" is entered and the "Download"
`
`button is clicked, a summary of the transactions within the date range will be
`
`downloaded and displayed].
`
`
`
`Applicant responds
`
`As argued above, “a date range” as taught in Schrader cannot read on “purpose”
`
`as taught and claimed in applicant’s invention.
`
`As to claim 17:
`
`Schrader teaches summary is provided for a first plurality of persons or enterprises
`
`according to category definition entered by a second plurality of persons or enterprises [A
`
`transaction instruction l69 is a description ofan action to be performed by afinancial
`
`institution or otherfinancial entity or a requestfor information from afinancial
`
`institution. Afinancial institution may be the user's bank, a clearinghouse, or other
`
`institution which processes electronic transactions, transfers, or otherwise is involved in
`
`the handling of transaction instructions or user's accounts, payments, orfund transfers
`
`For example, for a bill payment transaction instruction (here indicated as ’'Send9
`
`in ormation such as the payee of a bill payment is provided. In FIG. 7, the transaction
`
`instruction l69 of "Send Pacific Gas & Elec. $54.94" is a bill payment instruction; See
`
`Col. 8, lines 11-64].
`
`Applicant’s response
`
`Applicant respectfully requests further explanation fiom the Examiner as to
`
`specifically what in the above teaching of bill pay in Schrader refers to a first plurality of
`
`persons or enterprises; which part of Schrader’s teaching specifically refers to
`
`“according to category definition” as claimed, and which entity is identified as the second
`
`plurality of persons or enterprises. The presentation by the Examiner of Schrader cannot
`
`be clearly understood by applicant.
`
`As to claim 18:
`
`Schrader teaches description characteristics are developed from information taken from
`
`communication between clients and the system [A financial institution may be the user's
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`bank, a clearinghouse, or other institution which processes electronic transactions,
`
`transfers, or otherwise is involved in the handling oftransaction instructions or user's
`
`accounts, payments, orfund transfers
`
`the out box 167 is used to show bill payments to
`
`various merchants andfund transfers between user selected accounts,‘ See Col. 8, line 11
`
`— 64].
`
`Applicant responds
`
`Claim 18 refers to the pre-stored description characteristics associated with
`
`purpose of claim 13. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as the pre-stored description
`
`characteristics are developed from communication between clients and the system. As
`
`the Examiner has failed to show the pre-stored description characteristics, as claimed, the
`
`art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 18.
`
`Applicant responds generally to the balance of the claim rejections in that it is
`
`clear the Examiner is taking an overly and unreasonably broad interpretation of the art in
`
`the present Office Action. Applicant claims parsing and summarizing transaction
`
`according to criteria in addition to date range including at least parsing the collected
`
`transaction descriptions for purpose, via a processing function of the software using pre-
`
`stored description characteristics associated with purpose, and summarizing those
`
`transactions that meet the purpose and fall into the date range. The Examiner has not
`
`adequately shown where or how this is accomplished in Schrader.
`
`Applicant believes claim 13 is patentable as argued above. Claim 1 includes
`
`limitations argued on behalf of claim l3 and is patentable over Schrader for at least those
`
`arguments. Claims 2, 5-12, l4, l7-20 and 22-24 are patentable on their own merits, as
`
`argued above, or at least as depended from a patentable claim.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Summary
`
`As all of the claims, as argued above, have been shown to be patentable over the
`
`art presented by the Examiner, applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and the
`
`case be passed quickly to issue.
`
`If any fees are due beyond fees paid with this amendment, authorization is made
`
`to deduct those fees from deposit account 50-0534. If any time extension is needed
`
`beyond any extension requested with this amendment, such extension is hereby
`
`requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Ramakrishna Satyavolu
`
`By [.?)ana€d KR. 93%]
`Donald R. Boys
`Reg. No. 35,074
`
`Central Coast Patent Agency, Inc.
`3 Hangar Way, Suite D
`Watsonville CA 95076
`
`(831)768-1755
`
`
`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Categorization of summarized information
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utilnty under 35 USC111(a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Pages
`Multi
`Part /.zip (if appl.)
`
`132227
`
`
`
`Amend ment/Req. Reconsideration-After
`Non-Final Reject
`
`4943oar7'pdf
`
`3e9372cd93bb65573c939535f3e53e28f42
`3033a
`
`Information.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`132227
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`lfa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`lfa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`lfa new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`13