DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Aug. 4, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing (preferred) using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is highly encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Examiner is available for interviews, generally: M–F, 10 a.m.–4:00 p.m., EST. For any AIR, Applicant should expect an email response within 24-hours with an electronic interview appointment for one of their chosen date(s)/time(s) and web-based collaboration tool instructions. If there is a conflict, Examiner will reach out by email.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Aug. 4, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–20 remain pending and examined with Claims 1, 14, and 17 in independent form.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, and 17
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Oct. 7, 2022, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Applicant's Amendment to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (b) has been reviewed and has overcome each and every rejection under § 112(a), (b) previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2025, [“Non-Final Office Action"]. The rejection of all Claims under § 112(a), (b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues the amended claims recite “a practical application because the claims represent an improvement in the technical field of online financial transactions for the same reason as Example 47” in the amended limitation “a proxy card issued for transactions wherein transactions are evaluated against rules before communication with financial institutions linked to the charge user.” Applicant’s Reply at 14–5.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the “proxy card,” which is an additional element, Applicant’s Specification recite “proxy card(s)” in four locations in one paragraph, reproduced below:
In an alternative incarnation, consumers can interface exclusively with the system of present invention and participation by the financial institution is not required. This is achieved by the system of present invention providing the consumer 'proxy' cards that would serve in place of original credit or debit cards provided by financial institutions. These proxy cards would have a similar physical appearance and functionality and would be used in place of the original financial institutions' cards, including, but not limited to a bank card, a debit card, an ATM card, a credit card, or similar conventional financial transaction card issued by a financial institution. The proxy card itself preferably provides some indication of the underlying institution and account it represents. The proxy card is referenced as a 'TrustedGuard Card.'
Spec. ¶ 77.1 Applicant’s Specification teaches the claimed “proxy card” “would serve in place of original credit or debit cards provided by financial institutions” and “would have a similar physical appearance and functionality and would be used in place of the original financial institutions' cards.” Id. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software (“proxy card”) is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). Additionally, the limitation “transactions are evaluated against rules before communication with financial institutions linked to the charge user” recites a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to evaluating transactions against rules before communication. This limitation covers any solution to evaluating transactions against rules before communication with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). Examiner further finds the “proxy card” are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure. Spec. ¶ 77.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, the amended limitation does not provide an inventive concept.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant requests “Examiner to hold such rejections in abeyance as Applicant works to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 issue.” Examiner is unable to hold rejections in abeyance. MPEP § 714.03. In the next action, Applicant should submit an argument under the heading "Remarks" pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Id. The § 103 rejection from the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2025, [“Final Office Action”] is repeated below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–20 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–13 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 14–18 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations2 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 1. A method of asserting guardianship over the finances of a charge user by at least one guard user via an online platform accessed on an internet-connected device comprising:
[B] the at least one guard user navigating to the online platform on the internet-connected device, the guard user being an approved custodian of the charge user;
[C] the charge user creating an account on the online platform;
[D] the at least one guard user creating an account on the online platform;
[E] the at least one guard user, with permission of the charge user, linking his account with the account of the charge user;
[F] the at least one guard user interfacing the online platform with financial institutions associated with the charge user on behalf of the charge user, thereby linking different, financial institutions together via the online platform; wherein the at least one guard user need not be an account holder at the financial institutions;
[G] the platform communicating with the financial institutions to monitor financial activity;
[H] the charge user nominating an admin user from the at least one guard user;
[I] the charge user discussing safeguards with the at least one guard user, the safeguards selected from the following group consisting of: approving financial transactions, denying financial transactions, approving cash withdrawals, denying cash withdrawals, and establishing thresholds for transactions and withdrawals;
[J] the thresholds, when exceeded, triggering denial of the transaction and notification of the attempt to access funds in excess of the threshold;
[K] the at least one guard user instituting the discussed safeguards on the platform, creating instituted safeguards; and
[L] a proxy card issued for transactions
[M] wherein transactions are evaluated against rules before communication with financial institutions linked to the charge user; and
[N] wherein the charge user need not approve of the instituted safeguards.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “asserting guardianship over the finances of a charge user by at last one guard user” in the preamble, Limitation A; “communicating with the financial institutions to monitor financial activity” in Limitation G; and “discussing [financial] safeguards” in Limitation I; and “instituting the discussed [financial] safeguards” in Limitation K, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because “[financial] safeguards” are pre-sale or “sales activities or behaviors” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Limitations B–K, M and N are the required steps to “institute[e] the discussed [financial] safeguards” and thus, recite the same exception. Id.
Alternatively3, Limitations B–K, M and N, as drafted, recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
. . .
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B–K, M and N, recite a series of data communications collecting information (Limitations B–H) and analyzing it (Limitations I, J, K, M, N), where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Limitations I and K, are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind because they require mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” about selecting the financial safeguards and implementing those safeguards or “rules.” Spec. ¶ 8 (“important financial discussions between loved ones”). Likewise, Limitations J and M are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind under Classen, as determining whether a threshold is exceeded or evaluated against rules before communication is comparing two known pieces of data and whether to send a notification based on the comparison is mere judgement. Linking a proxy card and charge user’s financial institution could be performed in the same way as before the advent of the computer. See, NPL Bentz, Alyssa, “Can I see some ID?” (entire document); Aday, Mike, “Country Store Ledgers Provide an Intimate Look at Lives from the Past” (entire document) (cited herein on PTO-892). Limitation N is recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to determine the charge user approves the instituted safeguards. Limitations I, J, K, and M cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes.
If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims recite the combination of these abstract idea exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 1 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: an online platform; an internet connected device; and a proxy card
Regarding the online platform; an internet connected device; and a proxy card, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 19, 53, 61 (known and generic (exemplary) online platform); ¶¶ 10, 61, 63 (known and generic (exemplary) internet connect device (mobile device)); ¶ 77 (known and generic (exemplary) proxy cards replacing a credit or debit card). The generic platform and device, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Limitations A–N describe the online platform, internet connected device, and proxy card, performing the steps of the claimed invention which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 14 and 17 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 14 and 17 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 14 and 17 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ 93 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 8, 10, 19, 53, 61, 63, 77 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure4. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 10, 19, 53, 61, 63, 77; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., an online platform; an internet connected device; and a proxy card) are generic computer components. The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–N are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 14 and 17 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 14 and 17 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 14 and 17 also do not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. For example, Claim 2 recites both the organizing human activity and mental process exceptions for the same reasons above. Claim 9 recite using geolocation data to provide functionality but is recited at a high level and does not impose any meaningful limits on the exception. This amounts to use a computer to do it. Further, Applicants Specification does not recite any technical improvement in the geolocation feature and describes it in an exemplary way. “[A] [method] claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) (citation omitted). “[A] [method] claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology.” Id. (citation omitted). As explained supra, the pending claims can be performed without the aid of a computer. Accordingly, the pending claims do not improve computer technology. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–20 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poetsch (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0178725) [“Poetsch”] in view of Grassadonia (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0005323) [“Grassadonia”].
Regarding Claim 1, Poetsch discloses
A method of asserting guardianship over the finances of a charge user [child] by at least one guard user [parent]
(See at least ¶ 4, “method”. “System 100 may restrict the spending ability of the child, i.e.,
the account user,” by a parent. ¶ 82.)
via an online platform accessed on an internet-connected device comprising:
(See at least Fig. 11 and associated text ¶ 121, “a mobile application may be installed upon an account holder computing device. The mobile application may include instructions that, when executed, cause the account holder computing device to render and display graphical user interface 1100 to the account holder.”)
the at least one guard user navigating to the online platform on the internet-connected device, the guard user being an approved custodian of the charge user;
(See at least Fig. 11 and associated text ¶ 121, where a GUI is displayed on an account holder (Parent) device. A Parent is an approved custodian of a child (charge user).)
[…]
the at least one guard user, with permission of the charge user, linking his account with the account of the charge user;
(See at least ¶ 7, “The computing device may further receive from the first account holder a request to create an account link with a second account holder associated with a second account. The computing device may further create an account link between the first account associated with the first account holder and the second account associated with the second account holder.”)
the at least one guard user [Parent] interfacing the online platform with financial institutions associated with the charge user [child] on behalf of the charge user [child], thereby linking different, financial institutions together via the online platform;
(Examiner interprets “interfacing the platform” as “receiving conditional parameters.” See at least ¶ 82, “System 100 may receive conditional parameters in advance from an account holder that may be activated at a later date to adjust the spending power of one or more authorized users associated with the account. For instance, while alive, an account holder [Parent] may wish his or her child to be able to spend $100 per month on entertainment.” See also, ¶ 84, “account holder request … grant the third-party review … authority.” Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use or not positively recited. Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” MPEP § 2115. Alternatively, mere duplication of parts (different, unaffiliated financial institutions) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, as here. MPEP § 2144.04(VI). However, should a reviewing body disagree, Poetsch discloses said limitations. See at least Fig 18 disclosing a checking account 1, credit card account 1, savings account 1. Selecting the Fig. 18, “More 1890” button displays a “linking” button. ¶ 191. “Upon selection of the linking button by the account holder, the system may display a further graphical user interface like that shown in FIG. 19.” Id. Fig. 19, element 1930 (Step 2: Select your account(s) involved.), permits the user to select and link two different unaffiliated financial institutions together, i.e., a credit card account and a checking account. ¶ 194; see also ¶ 88 (“As discussed later with reference to FIG. 17, the account holder may also link multiple accounts communicating with the system via the graphical user interface displayed on the account holder computing device.”), ¶¶ 151, 152, 153 (linking multiple accounts by establishing thirds account).)
Alternatively, See Grassadonia, ¶¶ 31, 33 disclosing Visa, Mastercard, and American Express payment networks.
For Grassadonia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined calculated linking different, unaffiliated financial institutions together via the online platform as explained in Grassadonia, to the known invention of Poetsch, in the same field of invention, with the motivation for merchants to increase sales and flexibility to customers by allowing multiple different payment cards for purchases.
wherein the at least one guard user need not be an account holder at the financial institutions;
(Examiner interprets “need not be an account holder” as either the guard user is an account holder or the guard user is not an account holder. See at least ¶ 179, “At block 1712, the system may receive a request to create or update a link from one of multiple account holders associated with an account.”)
the platform communicating with the financial institutions to monitor financial activity;
(See at least Fig. 1, where the “financial institution server 110” communicates, for example, with the “account holder computing device 103.” See also ¶¶ 81, 87 (“the system may access a financial institution server”).).
the charge user [account user 170] nominating an admin user from the at least one guard user [designated third party];
(See at least ¶ 85, “Using the graphical user interfaces displayed on account holder computing device 130 and/or account user computing device 170, an account holder and/or account user may communicate with system 100 to carry out the various functionalities described herein.” “a designated third-party approver may have review and approval authority.” ¶ 84.)
the charge user discussing safeguards with the at least one guard user, the safeguards selected from the following group consisting of: approving financial transactions, denying financial transactions,
(See at least ¶ 37, the system may facilitate a real-time negotiation process through which the multiple holders debate and in some cases eventually concur on changes to transaction restriction parameters and/or link parameters before the system implements the same.” “Exemplary categorical transaction restriction parameters such as those listed below may be configured using system 100:” ¶ 46. The exemplary “transaction restriction parameters” are identified in ¶¶ 47–67, which describes when transaction would be approved or denied. Only on the group is required based on the interpretation in 112(b) supra. Limitations not explicitly rejected are indicated by
the thresholds, when exceeded, triggering denial of the transaction and notification of the attempt to access funds in excess of the threshold;
(See at least ¶ 76, “when a transaction is declined because it violates a transaction restriction parameter, server 110 may notify the account holder associated with the account.” A violation of a transaction restriction parameter is “the threshold when exceeded.” “Transactions below or above a threshold specified,” which is a transaction restriction parameter. ¶ 48; see also, Fig. 11 and associated text ¶ 123, disclosing a notification window.)
the at least one guard user instituting the discussed safeguards on the platform, creating instituted safeguards; and
(Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use or not positively recited. Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” MPEP § 2115. See at least Fig. 11 and associated text ¶ 123, where an account holder computing device and “Accept 1150” and “Deny 1160” GUI selectable elements that implement the discussed safeguards.)
a proxy card issued for transactions
(See at least ¶ 94, “At block 228, the system may issue a new card or account number to an authorized account user associated with the account.”
wherein transactions are evaluated against rules before communication with financial institutions linked to the charge user and
(See at least Fig. 2, step 232, and associated text ¶ 98, “compare the transaction details to one or more transaction restriction parameters … system may determine whether the requested transaction is permissible in view of the scope of permissible transactions associated with the account”)
wherein the charge user need not approve of the instituted safeguards.
(See at least ¶ 124, the system may allow a first account holder to defer to the decision of a second account holder by passing the request along to the second account holder.”)
Poetsch does not explicitly disclose the charge user and guard user creating accounts on the platform. Therefore, Poetsch does not disclose but Grassadonia discloses:
the charge user creating an account on the online platform; the at least one guard user creating an account on the online platform;
(See at least ¶ 46, a user interested in using the system might not have any relationship with server 104, so the user will be registering with server 104 for the first time. The user can input a username and password, and other identifying information.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the charge user and guard user both creating accounts on the platform as explained in Grassadonia, to the known invention of Poetsch, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to permit users to access the platform because a user “might not have any relationship with the server.” Grassadonia, ¶ 46.)
Regarding Claim 2, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 1 as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
further comprising: the charge user attempting a financial transaction of funds from a financial institution linked to the platform;
(See at least ¶ 95, “At block 230, the account user may attempt to execute a transaction using credit or funds located in the account managed by the system.”)
the platform evaluating if the financial transaction attempt is below an established threshold safeguard of the instituted safeguards as imposed by the at least one guard user;
(See at least ¶ 76, “when a transaction is declined because it violates a transaction restriction parameter.” A violation of a transaction restriction parameter is “the threshold when exceeded.” “Transactions below or above a threshold specified,” which is a transaction restriction parameter. ¶ 48)
wherein the at least one guard user need not be an account holder at the financial institution;
(Examiner interprets “need not be an account holder” as either the guard user is an account holder or the guard user is not an account holder. See at least ¶ 179, “At block 1712, the system may receive a request to create or update a link from one of multiple account holders associated with an account.”)
the platform contacting the financial institution and permitting the financial transaction if the request is below the established threshold of the instituted safeguards;
(See at least ¶ 76, “when a transaction is declined because it violates a transaction restriction parameter.” A violation of a transaction restriction parameter is “the threshold when exceeded.” “Transactions below or above a threshold specified,” which is a transaction restriction parameter. ¶ 48)
the platform notifying at least one guard user of the financial transaction attempt via a notification on an internet connected device disposed in communication with the platform if the financial transaction attempt is greater than the established threshold of the instituted safeguards;
(See at least ¶ 77, server 110 may automatically suggest to the account holder an update to the transaction restriction parameter that would permit approval of the transaction request. … For example, the suggested update to the transaction restriction parameter may be to increase the maximum transaction value from $50.00 to $51.13.” Fig. 11 discloses such a notification where the account holder may accept or decline the transaction as a one-time exception. ¶¶ 78, 101, 122).
the platform denying the financial transaction if the request is greater than the established threshold of the instituted safeguards; and
(See at least Fig. 11 and associated text ¶ 125, “Notification window 1120 may further include a "transaction time out" countdown 1180. Transaction time out countdown 1180 may inform the account holder as to the time window in which the system must receive a response from the account holder via the account holder computing device [Fig. 11, “Accept 1150,” “Deny 1160”] before the system handles the transaction at issue according to a default action.” “[T]he system's default response may be to leave the status quo transaction restriction parameter unmodified. In such cases, the system may simply deny the transaction request because the transaction details contained therein indicate that the proposed transaction conflicts with or violates the transaction restriction parameter.” ¶ 126.)
wherein, in the event of denial, the connection to the at least one financial institution is blocked by the platform, preventing the processing of the transaction.
(See at least Fig. 11 and associated text ¶ 123, “When deny button 1160 is selected by the account holder, the system may receive a denial response from the account holder computing device.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 2 and the financial transaction attempt as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
wherein the financial transaction attempt is an account debit.
(See at least ¶ 95, “debit card”)
Regarding Claim 4, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 2 and the financial transaction attempt as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
wherein the financial transaction attempt is a charge to a credit card.
(See at least ¶ 95, “the account user may present to a merchant at a point of sale a credit card associated with an account managed by the system.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 2 and the instituted threshold safeguard as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
wherein the instituted safeguard is a multi-account safeguard, preventing the charge user from surpassing the established threshold across a combination of designated accounts cumulatively.
(See at least ¶ 151, “multiple accounts may be linked …”; “daily limit on collective transaction total” ¶ 47)
Regarding Claim 7, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 1, the charge user, and guard user as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
wherein the charge user is the owner of the financial accounts; and wherein the guard user is the charge user, and therefore the owner of the financial accounts, facilitating a self-guard option via the platform.
(See at least ¶ 85, “the account holder may be the same person or entity as the account user.” See also, ¶ 89, “single authorized account holder”, ¶¶ 177, 178)
Regarding Claim 8, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 2, the charge user, and guard user as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
wherein the charge user is the owner of the financial accounts; and wherein the guard user is the charge user, and therefore the owner of the financial accounts, facilitating a self-guard option via the platform.
(See at least ¶ 85, “the account holder may be the same person or entity as the account user.” See also, ¶ 89, “single authorized account holder”, ¶¶ 177, 178)
Regarding Claim 13, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 8 as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
further comprising: the platform issuing a proxy card to the charge user, the proxy card linked to the at least one financial institution to serve in lieu of a debit card, bank card, or credit card issued by a financial institution;
(Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use or not positively recited, which does not distinguish the prior art. MPEP §§ 2103(I)(C), 2115. See at least ¶ 95._
the platform reviewing any attempted use of the proxy card for a financial transaction against the instituted safeguards before the at least one financial institution linked to the proxy card is contacted for release of funds;
(See at least Fig. 2, step 232, and associated text ¶ 98, “compare the transaction details to one or more transaction restriction parameters … system may determine whether the requested transaction is permissible in view of the scope of permissible transactions associated with the account”)
the at least one financial institution linked to the proxy card permitting the processing of the attempted financial institution only after the platform confirms all instituted safeguard conditions are met.
(See at least ¶ 99, “At block 238, the system may approve or accept the transaction request when the transaction details do not violate or conflict with one or more transaction restriction parameters.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Poetsch discloses
A method of asserting guardianship over the finances of a charge user by at least one guard user via an online platform accessed on an internet-connected device comprising: (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user navigating to the platform on the internet-connected device, the guard user being an approved custodian of the charge user; (See Claim 1)
the charge user creating an account on the platform; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user creating an account on the platform; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user, with permission of the charge user, linking his account with the account of the charge user; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user interfacing the platform with financial institutions associated with the charge user on behalf of the charge user; (See Claim 1)
wherein the at least one guard user need not be account holder at the financial institutions; (See Claim 1)
the platform communicating with the financial institutions to monitor financial activity; (See Claim 1)
the charge user nominating an admin user from the at least one guard user; (See Claim 1)
the charge user discussing safeguards with the at least one guard user, the safeguards selected from the following group consisting of: approving financial transactions, denying financial transactions, approving cash withdrawals, denying cash withdrawals, and establishing thresholds for transactions and withdrawals; (See Claim 1)
the thresholds, when exceeded, triggering a denial of the transaction and notification of the attempt to access funds in excess of the threshold to that at least one guard user; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user instituting the discussed safeguards on the platform, creating instituted safeguards; (See Claim 1)
wherein the charge user need not approve of the instituted safeguards; and (See Claim 1)
the charge user attempting a financial transaction of funds from a financial institution linked to the platform; (See Claim 2)
the platform evaluating if the financial transaction attempt is below an established threshold safeguard of the instituted safeguards as imposed by the at least one guard user; (See Claim 2)
wherein the at least one guard user need not be an account holder at the financial institution; (See Claim 2)
the platform contacting the financial institution linked to the platform and permitting the financial transaction if the request is below the established threshold of the instituted safeguards; (See Claim 2)
the platform notifying at least one guard user of the financial transaction attempt via a notification on an internet connected device disposed in communication with the platform if the financial transaction attempt is greater than the established threshold of the instituted safeguards; (See Claim 2)
the platform denying the financial transaction if the request is greater than the established threshold of the instituted; and (See Claim 2)
a proxy card issued for transactions wherein transactions are evaluated against rules before communication with financial institutions linked to the charge user and (See Claim 1)
wherein, in the event of denial, the connection to the at least one financial institution is blocked by the platform, preventing the processing of the transaction. (See Claim 2).
The limitations of Claim 14 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 1 and 2 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Poetsch and Grassadonia for the same rationale presented in Claims 1 and 2, supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Poetsch and Grassadonia disclose
The method of claim 14 as explained above.
Poetsch further discloses
further comprising: the platform linking a proxy card to at least one of the financial institutions associated with the charge user;
(See at least ¶ 94, “At block 228, the system may issue a new card or account number to an authorized account user associated with the account.”)
the charge user attempting a financial transaction of funds from a financial institution linked to the platform via the proxy card;
(See at least ¶ 95, “At block 230, the account user may attempt to execute a transaction using credit or funds located in the account managed by the system.”)
the platform evaluating if the financial transaction attempt is below an established threshold safeguard of the instituted safeguards as imposed by the at least one guard user; (See Claim 2)
wherein the at least one guard user need not be an account holder at the financial institution; (See Claim 2)
the platform contacting the financial institution linked to the proxy card via the platform and permitting the financial transaction if the request is below the established threshold of the instituted safeguards; (See Claim 2)
the platform notifying at least one guard user of the financial transaction attempt via a notification on an internet connected device disposed in communication with the platform if the financial transaction attempt is greater than the established threshold of the instituted safeguards; (See Claim 2)
the platform denying the financial transaction if the request is greater than the established threshold of the instituted safeguards; and (See Claim 2)
wherein, in the event of denial, the connection to the at least one financial institution is blocked by the platform, preventing the processing of the transaction from the proxy card. (See Claim 2)
Regarding Claim 17, Poetsch discloses
A method of remotely guarding the finances of a charge user by at least one guard user via an online platform accessed on an internet-connected device comprising: (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user navigating to the platform on the internet-connected device, the guard user being an approved custodian of the charge user; (See Claim 1)
the charge user creating an account on the platform; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user creating an account on the platform; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user, with permission of the charge user, linking his account with the account of the charge user; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user interfacing the platform with financial institutions associated with the charge user on behalf of the charge user; (See Claim 1)
wherein the at least one guard user need not be an account holder at the financial institutions; (See Claim 1)
the platform communicating with the financial institutions to monitor financial activity; (See Claim 1)
the charge user nominating an admin user from the at least one guard user; (See Claim 1)
the charge user discussing safeguards with the at least one guard user, the safeguards selected from the following group consisting of: approving financial transactions, denying financial transactions, approving cash withdrawals, denying cash withdrawals, and establishing thresholds for transactions and withdrawals; (See Claim 1)
the thresholds, when exceeded, triggering denial of the financial transaction and notification of the attempt to access funds in excess of the threshold; (See Claim 1)
the at least one guard user instituting the discussed safeguards on the platform, creating instituted safeguards; (See Claim 1)
wherein the charge user need not approve of the instituted safeguards; (See Claim 1)
the platform linking a proxy card to at least one of the financial institutions associated with the charge user;
(See at least ¶ 94, “At block 228, the system may issue a new card or account number to an authorized account user associated with the account.”)
wherein the charge user is the owner of the financial accounts; (See Claim 7)
a proxy card issued for transactions wherein transactions are evaluated against rules before communication with financial institutions linked to the charge user and (See Claim 1)
wherein the guard user is the charge user, and therefore the owner of the financial accounts, facilitating a self-guard option via the platform. (See Claim 7)
The limitations of Claim 17 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 1 and 7 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Poetsch and Grassadonia for the same rationale presented in Claims 1 and 7, supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as pa