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, 14, 21-26 and 29-31 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 3/30/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 3/30/2026.
3. 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,” and “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.
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/or boldened 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 13 recites a method wherein the spending power comprises a credit limit established for the user based on at least one of the budget or a regulatory threshold amount associated with the merchant.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed, not method steps performed in the past (i.e., established). 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.
Claim 23 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 23 does not recite that the system is configured to establishing a credit limit or is executing instructions to establish a credit limit.
Claim 28 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 28 does not recite that the computer-readable medium causes a processor to a credit limit.
Claim 14 recites a method wherein the first spending plan is computed 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 never loaded on the user device.
Claims 24 and 29, due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
Claim 15 recites a method wherein the user interface further presents a spending animation representing the spending power of the user.
Claim elements (i.e., the data being presented) 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).
Claims 25 and 30, due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
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 never activated on the user device.
4. 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:
computing … prior to receiving a first transaction between a merchant and a user, a first spending plan associated with the merchant and the user based on a budget of the user, wherein the first spending plan is computed … based on user data of the user and merchant data for the merchant;
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;
receiving the first transaction between the merchant and the user;
detecting the user accessing information associated with the first transaction with the merchant …;
…
converting at least a portion of the first transaction amount into the first 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 first transaction was processed between the merchant and the user;
dynamically updating the user … in real-time based on the change in spending power;
adjusting an available balance associated with the first spending plan based on the detecting that the first transaction was processed;
detecting a second transaction being processed … subsequent to the adjusting the available balance;
…
enforcing, …, the modified application limitation for the second transaction based on the adjusted available balance.
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), artificial intelligence engine (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), an application programming interface (Claim(s) 11, 21 and 26), an electronic card network (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 adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. 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.
5. 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 Mao (US Patent 11,631,128).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a method comprising:
computing, by an online transaction processor, prior to receiving a first transaction between a merchant and a user, 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 computed using an engine (model algorithms, such as a decision tree, a general linear model and basic indexing) based on user data (consumer data) for the user and merchant data for the merchant (transaction history, including merchant data)(see fig. 5; para. 26-27, 48-49 and 86);
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);
receiving the first transaction between the merchant between the merchant and the user. (see para. 60-61);
detecting the user accessing information (spending categories) associated with the first 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 first transaction was processed between the merchant and the user. (see fig. 5; para. 60-62);
modifying the application limitation (spending limit) for the application based on the change of spending power. (see para. 65-66);
dynamically updating the user interface based on the change in spending power. (see para. 60-62);
adjusting (updating) an available balance associated with the first spending plan based on the detecting that the first transaction was processed. (see para. 61);
enforcing (via transaction denial), via an interface (communications interface) with an electronic card network (payment network), the modified application limitation (spending limit) for transaction based on the adjusted available balance. (see para. 33 and 96).
Lee does not explicitly teach a method comprising detecting a second transaction being processed via the application subsequent to the adjusting the available balance; or re-rendering, in the user interface via the application, the slider element based on the adjusted available balance, wherein the re-rendered slider element is dynamically configurable to convert at least a portion of a second transaction amount associated with the second transaction into a second installment plan.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by duplicating claim elements contained in Lee (e.g., the first transaction and the first rendering of a slider element) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a second transaction and a second rendering of a slider element) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the engine is an artificial intelligence engine; interaction with the slider element (i.e., the user interface element) converts at least a portion of the transaction into an installment plan across multiple time periods; the updates are real-time updates; or the interface is an application programming interface.
Mao discloses a method:
computing, by an online transaction processor, prior to receiving a first transaction between a merchant and a user, a first spending plan (spending limit) associated with a merchant and a user, wherein the first spending plan (spending limit) is computed using an artificial intelligence engine. (see col. 41, lines 17-28);
interaction with the graphic element converts at least a portion of the transaction into an installment plan across multiple time periods (extra time periods). (see fig. 4; col. 10, line 56 – col. 11, line 17);
the user interface updates in real-time. (see col. 37, lines 35-52); and
communicating, via an application programming interface integration with an electronic card network (financial institutions). (see col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 5; col. 9, lines 27-47);
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 Mao, 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 before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee and Mao 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.
Mao discloses a method comprising authenticating the user for accessing a digital account of the user. (see col. 33, lines 9-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Mao by authenticating the user, as disclosed by Mao, 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 Mao 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 Mao, 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 Mao 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.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current rejection. However, some arguments remain relevant, as they apply to a reference and/or rejection still utilized in the current rejection. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 10-12.
Specifically, the Applicant argues:
For example, even if the claims recite a judicial exception (which Applicant does not admit), Applicant respectfully 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, p. 11 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 adjusting and limiting financial 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. For example, the specification describes a technical problem relating to user interface limitations in managing application controls, such as availability of and limits on spending power within a mobile application. See paragraph [0002] of the application. To address these problems, the present application notes the improvements to technology and/or a technical field at least at paragraphs [0011]-[0020]. As described in the specification, a software application may provide rendered and re-rendered user interfaces and adjustable sliders that enable users to adjust such limits, such as by throttling or moving the limit to different levels. Id. at paragraph [0011]. See Arguments, p. 11 – emphasis added.
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.
The specification does not provide any evidence that there is a technical problem (i.e., a technology-based problem) to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing and conventional technology (i.e., a user interface) was not capable of performing the claimed process but for the claimed technology-based solution.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that the functionality of a computer or conventional technology (i.e., user interfaces or user interface elements, such as sliders) have been improved or their technological capabilities have been expanded.
MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 – emphasis added.
Even assuming there was a technology-based problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technology-based solution to the technology-based problem was accomplished.
If there was a technology-based problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technology-based solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed.
For example, if existing computer technology was incapable of providing rendered or re-rendered user interfaces, or existing user interfaces were incapable of utilizing adjustable sliders, then the claims should recite the details of how these technological obstacles were solved.
The court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., adjusting spending limits) that uses computers as tools.
7. Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights