DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 11-15 and 21-35 are pending.
Claims 11, 21 and 26 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 10/17/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 10/17/2025.
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
4. Minor Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites “detecting the user accessing information associated with the pending transaction with the merchant.”
However, there is no earlier recitation of a pending transaction in Claim 11.
Examiner notes that Claim 11 recites “the first spending plan is precomputed prior to receiving a transaction between the merchant and the user” but that does not mean that the method step of actively receiving a transaction (pending or otherwise) between the merchant and the user is received. It just means that the spending plan is computed prior to receiving a transaction between the merchant and the user, if a transaction is ever received.
Claims 21 and 26 have similar issues.
5. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
determining, by an online transaction processor, a first spending plan associated with a merchant and a user based on budget of the user, wherein the first spending plan is precomputed prior to receiving a transaction between the merchant and the user.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., determining a first spending plan), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., precomputed first spending plan). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 26 have similar issues.
Claim 14 recites a method wherein the first spending plan is determined prior to a loading of the application on the user device.
The claims as written do not recite a method step of loading of the application on the user device. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the application is not loaded on the user device.
Claim 15 recites a method wherein the user interface further comprises a spending animation representing the spending power of the user.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 34 recites a method further comprising:
computing a plurality of states of the application prior to an activation of the application prior to an activation of the application on the user device.
The claims as written do not recite a method step of activating an application on the user device. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the application is not activated on the user device.
6. 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 11-15 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
determining … a first spending plan associated with a merchant and a user based, at least on, a budget of the user, wherein the first spending plan is precomputed prior to receiving a transaction between the merchant and the user;
generating … data and [a] … limitation for … a user … based on the first spending plan, wherein the … limitation represents a spending power of the user over a time period;
detecting the user accessing information associated with a pending transaction with the merchant …;
…
converting at least a portion of the transaction amount into an installment plan across multiple time periods based on the interaction, wherein the converting causes a change to the spending power of the user over the time period;
modifying the … limitation … based on the change to the spending power;
detecting that the transaction was processed between the merchant and the user;
adjusting an available balance associated with the first spending plan based on the detecting;
…
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to enforce spending plan which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, also covers a series of steps instructing a person how to enforce a spending plan which qualifies as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Examiner notes that “budgeting” is a court-provided example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’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” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an online transaction processor (Claim(s) 11 and 21), interface data (Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), an application limitation (Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), a user interface (see Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), a slider element (on a user interface) (Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), a user device (Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), computing platform (Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), a non-transitory memory (Claim(s) 21), and hardware processors (Claim(s) 21).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 12-15, 22-25 and 27-35 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a purchase interface (Claim(s) 15, 25 and 30), an electronic transaction (Claim(s) 31) and a digital account (Claim(s) 33).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
hiding, in the user interface, a conversion option of an additional amount associated with the slider element associated with the available balance from appearing in the user interface subsequent to the transaction being processed.
Examiner was unable to locate any support in the specification pertaining to hiding a conversion option conversion option of an additional amount associated with the slider element associated with the available balance from appearing in the user interface.
Claims 21 and 26 have similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-15 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
hiding, in the user interface, a conversion option of an additional amount associated with the slider element associated with the available balance from appearing in the user interface subsequent to the transaction being processed.
What does this mean?
The method does not recite displaying a conversion option in the user interface. Does hiding a conversion option mean that there is a conversion option on the user interface and it is hidden from view? For example, there is an unmarked button on the user interface. Or does this mean that there is no conversion option and, as such, no conversion option is displayed on the interface?
Claims 21 and 26 have similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11-14, 21-24, 26-29 and 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PG Pub. 2016/0071200) in view of Kim (US Patent 10,210,569).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a method comprising:
determining, by an online transaction processor, a first spending plan (spending limit) associated with a merchant and a user based on budget of the user, wherein the first spending plan (spending limit or budget) is precomputed prior to receiving a transaction between the merchant and the user. (see fig. 5; para. 26-27);
generating interface data (data for a graphical user interface) and an application limitation (spending limit) for an application based on the spending plan, wherein the application limitation represents a spending power of the user over a time period. (see para. 32-34 and 63-74);
detecting the user accessing information (spending categories) associated with the pending transaction with the merchant via the application. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
providing, via the application on the user device a user interface based on the interface data (data for the graphical user interface) and the application limitation (spending limit), wherein the user interface presents the application limitation (spending limit); (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
rendering, in the user interface via the application, a slider element that is dynamically configurable to adjust the spending power of the user based over the time period via the user interface. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
detecting an interaction between the user and the slider element. (see para. 65-66);
wherein the interaction causes a change to the spending power of the user over the time period. (see para. 65-66);
detecting that the transaction was processed between the merchant and the user. (see fig. 5; para. 60-62);
adjusting (updating) an available balance associated with the first spending plan based on the detecting. (see para. 60-62);
modifying the application limitation (spending limit) for the application based on the change of spending power. (see para. 65-66).
enforcing (via transaction denial) the modified application limitation (spending limit) via the application for a subsequent transaction between the user and the merchant. (see para. 33).
Lee does not teach a method comprising hiding (i.e., not displaying), in the user interface, a conversion option of an additional amount associated with the slider element associated with the available balance from appearing in the user interface subsequent to the transaction being processed.
Examiner notes: There is no positive recitation of the “a conversion option” being “unhidden”, therefore this limitation is being interpreted as --without having, in the user interface, a conversion option…--.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to eliminate a conversion option from the user interface, since it has been held that mere omission of an element and its function in a combination, without more, involves only routine skill in the art. see MPEP §2144.04 (II).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the interaction results in converting at least a portion of the transaction into an installment plan across multiple time periods.
Kim discloses a method comprising:
based on detecting an interaction with the user (such as user confirmation), converting at least a portion of the transaction amount into an installment plan (payment plan) across multiple time periods, wherein the converting causes a change to the spending power of the user over the time period. (see col. 19, lines 36-51).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee by incorporating an installment plan, as disclosed by Kim, thereby enabling a user to structure a purchase to comply with budgetary and spending limitations.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses a method comprising:
receiving a second spending plan corresponding to an amount that is above or below the budget of the user (lowering the spending level from $200/month to $100/month). (see para. 33-34); and
adjusting the first spending plan based on the second spending plan. (see para. 33-34).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses a method wherein the spending power comprises a credit limit (spending limit on a credit card or credit purchases) established for the user based on at least one of the budget or a regulatory threshold amount associated with the merchant. (see para. 21-24).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee does not explicitly teach a method wherein the first spending plan is determined prior to a loading of the application on the user device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee and Kim to change the order for performance of the method steps wherein the change of order fails to produce a new or unexpected result. see MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding Claims 21-24 and 26-29, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 31, Lee discloses a method comprising:
receiving, via the application, an electronic transaction processing request for a second transaction. (see para. 61-62);
determining that the second transaction violates (exceeds) the modified application limitation. (see para. 61-62); and
rejecting (denying) the electronic transaction processing request via the application. (see para. 6-62).
Regarding Claim 32, Lee discloses a method comprising:
determining the at least the portion of the transaction amount based on an extent of movement (of a slider) associated with the interaction (with the slider). (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74).
Regarding Claim 33, Lee does not teach a method comprising authenticating the user for accessing a digital account of the user.
Kim discloses a method comprising authenticating the user for accessing a digital account of the user. (see col. 16, lines 7-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kim by authenticating the user, as disclosed by Kim, to ensure that the user is authorized.
Regarding Claim 34, Lee discloses a method comprising:
computing a plurality of states (rules) of the application. (see para. 24); and
loading the plurality of states (rules) onto the application,
wherein determining the first spending plan (payment service), wherein the determining the first spending plan is further based on a selection of one or more of the plurality of states (rules). (see para. 24).
Lee does not explicitly teach a method comprising precomputing a plurality of states of the application prior to an activation of the application on the user device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee and Kim to change the order for performance of the method steps wherein the change of order fails to produce a new or unexpected result. see MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding Claim 35, Lee discloses a method wherein the application limit (spending amount) is generated further based on a usage of funds (transaction amount) associated with the first spending plan. (see para. 61).
Claim(s) 15, 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kim, as applied to Claims 1, 21 and 26 above, and further in view of Baral (US PG Pub. 2025/0045819).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses a method wherein the user interface further comprises a spending element representing the spending power of the user with the merchant. (see fig. 6A-7B).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the spending element is a spending animation.
Baral discloses a method wherein the user interface further comprises a spending animation representing the spending power of the user with the merchant. (see para. 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kim by incorporating an animation, as disclosed by Baral, thereby making the interface more engaging and interactive for the user.
Regarding Claims 25 and 30, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
10. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically that the additional elements impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See Arguments, pp. 9-10.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
For example, Applicant submits that the limitations of the amended claims integrate the exception into a practical limitation and are thus statutory under Step 2A, Prong Two. In particular, the limitations relate to a specific usage (configurable user interface sliders for automated enforcement of account limitations) in a specific situation (when providing installment plans to users via computing devices) to provide a particular practical application that improves technology (e.g., to preemptively and/or in real-time adjust and
limit account usage to reduce exposure to fraud or other unauthorized or misappropriate
account usage). See Arguments, pp. 9-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claimed invention recites additional elements (e.g., user interface sliders) to perform an abstract idea or utilizes the additional elements (e.g., user interface sliders) in a specific situation (e.g., to provide installment plans) does not satisfy Step 2A Prong Two.
Improving technology, specifically “[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” does satisfy Step 2A Prong Two. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
However, “preemptively and/or in real-time adjust and limit account usage to reduce exposure to fraud or other unauthorized or misappropriate account usage” is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, preemptively and/or in real-time adjust and limit account usage to reduce exposure to fraud or other unauthorized or misappropriate account usage, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Applicant further argues:
The claims provide specific improvements in technology so as to be limited to a practical application that improves over the prior systems. The specification described the problem at paragraphs [0002] and [00011] of the present application where a number of security issues and other account usage issues arise without the availability to limit digital account usage in real-time. To address these problems, the limitations recited in the claims provide a specific set of processes and user interfaces that enable users to pre-emptively, proactively, and/or in real-time adjust an installment plan available through a mobile account, which may enforce user limitations on account usage. The presently amended claims therefore provide faster, more efficient, and more secure account usage and enforcement of limitations on accounts. Such limitations are directed at a solution to the aforementioned technical problem. See Arguments, p. 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a technology-based problem.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that there is even a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions but for the claimed technical solution.
§103 Rejection
The §103 Rejection has been rewritten and the prior art remapped to account for the newly amended claim language.
11. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 December 11, 2025
Prosecution Insights