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 1-10 and 21-30 are pending.
Claims 21-30 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 8/04/2025.
Claims 11-20 were cancelled in the Applicant’s filing on 8/04/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant’s filing on 8/04/2025.
3. Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10 and 21-30) in the reply filed on 8/04/2025 is acknowledged.
4. Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 25 is dependent upon Claim 21 and recites “the transmitting.” However, there is no earlier recitation of transmitting in Claim 21.
Claim 5 has similar issues
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 21 recites a method comprising:
determining that the change is associated with at least one of user data associated with a user or an electronic budget established by the user for the application.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., establishing by the user), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., established by the user). 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 1 and 30 have similar issues.
Claim 21 recites a method comprising:
updating, via an application programming interface (API) of the application, the application with the interface output prior to a launching of the application on the user device of the user.
Examiner notes that the method does not recite a method step of launching of the application. As such, the method step of updating the application occurs prior to a future potential launching of the application which may or may not ever occur.
Claims 1 and 30 have similar issues.
Claim 23 recites a method comprising:
causing to be displayed in the application an option to adjust the spending limit and utilize less than a maximum amount of the computed second spending limit;
receiving a request to adjust the computed second spending limit; and
adjusting the computed second spending limit available via the application using the API.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material (i.e., what is displayed) and are not functionally involved in the steps recited (i.e., utilizing less than a maximum amount of the computed second spending limit). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 3 has similar issues.
Claim 25 recites a method comprising precomputing a plurality of states of the application that are loaded to the application via the transmitting prior to an activation of the application on the user device.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., precomputing a plurality of states), not method steps possibly performed in the future (i.e., loading the plurality of states to the application). Claiming method steps in the future tense can be interpreted as the method steps possibly performed in the future are outside the scope of the claimed method.
Examiner notes that the method does not recite a method step of launching of the application. As such, the method step of transmitting the application occurs prior to a future potential launching of the application which may or may not ever occur.
Claim 5 has similar issues.
Claim 26 recites a method wherein the computing the second spending limit is further based on an expiration of a time period associated with the electronic budget that renews at least a portion of the user data.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e. renewing at least a portion of the user data), not the intended purpose of a structural element (i.e., the time period triggers the renewal of at least a portion of the user data).
Claim 6 has similar issues.
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 1-10 and 21-30 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:
detecting a change to an … element by a user … of a service provider … of the user;
determining that the change is associated with at least one of user data associated with a user or an … budget established by the user for the application;
determining a first spending limit for the user with a merchant;
accessing information associated with the merchant and the service provider;
computing a second spending limit different from the first spending limit based on the change and the information …;
generating an … output … based on the computed second spending limit.
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 manage financial transactions between a user and a merchant which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Examiner notes that “processing an application for financing a loan” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Services (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Dealertrack v. Huber (Fed. Cir. 2021).
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 a memory (Claim(s) 1), processor(s) (Claim(s) 1), an interface element (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an application (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), a user device (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an electronic budget (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an artificial intelligence (AI) engine (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), an interface output (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30), and application programming interface (1) (Claim(s) 1, 21 and 30).
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) 2-9 and 22-29 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1 and 20. 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 an electronic transaction (Claim(s) 2 and 22), a sliding interface button (Claim(s) 4 and 24) and a dynamic spending limitation graphic element (Claim(s) 10).
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(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 1-10 and 21-30 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 21 recites a method comprising:
updating, via an application programming interface (API) of the application, the application with the interface output prior to a launching of the application on the user device of the user.
How is an application updated prior to being launched (i.e., started or initiated)? How can an application, that has not been launched (i.e., inactive or turned off), receive an update?
Additionally, the first method step of Claim 21 recites:
detecting a change to an interface element entered by a user via an application of a service provider on a user device of the user.
If the first method step of the claim is detecting a change of an interface entered by a user via an application, then the application has been launched (i.e., started or initiated) thereby enabling the application to display an interface and to detect a change to the interface.
Claims 1 and 30 have similar issues.
Claims 5 and 25 has similar issues as the application loads data into the application prior to an activation of the application.
Claim 26 recites a method wherein the computing the second spending limit is further based on an expiration of a time period associated with the electronic budget.
What does this mean? Does this mean that the second spending limit is only computed when an expiration of a time period has occurred (i.e., if the time period has not expired, no second spending limit is computed)? Or does this mean that the second spending limit, once computed, has an assigned time period (e.g., the second spending limit is a spending limit for only 30 days)?
Claim 6 has similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
8. 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) 1-7, 10, 21-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PG Pub. 2016/0071200) in view of Kruse (US Patent 11,775,977).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a method comprising:
detecting a change to an interface element (moved slider bar) entered by a user via an application of a service provider on a user device of the user. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
determining that the change is associated with at least one of user data associated with a user or an electronic budget (level of spending in a respective category) established by the user for the application. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
determining a first spending limit (level of spending in a respective category or limits on merchants) for the user with a merchant. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 24 and 63-74);
accessing information associated with the merchant and the service provider (merchant data and transaction history). (see para. 46-50);
computing a second spending limit (lower spending limit) different from the first spending limit based on the change and the information using an engine. (see para. 62, 73 and 77-80)
generating an interface output of a user interface of the application (budget display page) based on the computed second spending limit. (see para. 67-68); and
updating the application with the interface output (budget display page) prior to a launching of the application on the user device of the user.
Lee does not explicitly teach a method comprising updating the application with the interface output 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 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).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the engine is an artificial intelligence (AI) engine; or the updating is via an application programming interface (API).
Kruse discloses a method comprising:
computing a spending limit (spending limits or periodic limits) based on the information using an artificial intelligence engine (machine learning models). (see col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 39; col. 36, lines 10-32); and
updating, via an application programming interface (API) of the application, the application with the output. (see col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate artificial intelligence engine(s) and application programming interface(s), as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing standard and conventional computerized elements to implement the method of Lee.
Regarding Claim 22, Lee discloses a method comprising:
receiving an electronic transaction processing request for a transaction. (see para. 33 and 60-62);
determining that the transaction violates (exceeds) the computed second spending limit. (see para. 33 and 60-62); and
rejecting (denying) the electronic transaction processing request. (see para. 33 and 60-62).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the rejection is via an application programming interface (API).
Kruse discloses a method comprising communicating, via an application programming interface (API). (see col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kruse to incorporate artificial application programming interface(s), as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing standard and conventional computerized elements to implement the method of Lee.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee discloses a method comprising:
causing to be displayed in the application an option to adjust the spending limit (via slider) and utilize less than a maximum amount of the computed second spending limit. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74);
receiving a request to adjust the computed spending limit. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74); and
adjusting the computed spending limit available via the application using the API. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74).
Lee does not explicitly teach a method wherein the adjusted spending limit is a second spending limit.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee and Kruse by duplicating claim elements contained in Lee (e.g., adjusting the first spending limit to create a second spending limit) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a adjusting the second spending limit to create an adjusted second spending limit) 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).
Regarding Claim 24, Lee discloses a method wherein the option comprises a sliding interface button able to adjust the computed spending limit via the application using the interface. (see fig. 6A-7B; para. 63-74).
Regarding Claim 25, Lee discloses a method comprising precomputing a plurality of states (rules) of the application that are loaded to the application via the transmitting. (see para. 24).
Lee does not explicitly teach a method comprising transmitting 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 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 26, Lee discloses a method wherein the computing the second spending limit is further based on an expiration of a time period associated with the electronic budget. (see para. 60-62).
Regarding Claim 27, Lee discloses a method wherein the first spending limit and the second spending limit each comprise a transaction type limit based on one or more merchant category (limits for merchants or industries) for the merchant. (see para. 24).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the merchant category is a merchant category code (MCC).
Kruse discloses a method wherein the merchant category is a merchant category code (MCC). (see col. 34, lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kruse to MCC(s), as disclosed by Kruse, thereby utilizing a standard and conventional merchant identifier.
Regarding Claims 1-7, 10 and 30, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kruse, as applied to Claim 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Aidoo (US PG Pub. 2012/0109819).
Regarding Claim 28, Lee discloses a method wherein the computed second spending limit comprises an option (speed setting) for the computed spending limit (to reach the spending target) that is variable via one or more interface elements (the slider) in the application. (see fig. 7A-7B; para. 71).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the option is an installment plan option.
Aidoo discloses a method wherein the option is an installment plan option (see para. 1).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Kruse by incorporating an installment plan, as disclosed by Aidoo, thereby enabling a user to customize a budget and an installment plan, as payments under an installment plan would be a component element of determining a budget.
Regarding Claim 29, Lee discloses a method wherein the plan (spending limit plan) comprises a plurality of payment parameters (suggested spending in each category) based on a user payment history (transaction history of payment transactions) for the user with the user data, and wherein the application displays a plurality of options based on the user payment history. (see fig. 6A-6B; para. 7, 31 and 63-68).
Lee does not teach a method wherein the plan is an installment plan option.
Aidoo discloses a method wherein the option is an installment plan option (see para. 1).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Kruse and Aidoo by incorporating an installment plan, as disclosed by Aidoo, thereby utilizing payment history to generate a budget and an installment plan, as payments under an installment plan would be component elements of determining a budget.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
9. 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 November 15, 2025