DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 07/01/2026.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 16-20 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 12-15 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims do not attempt to claim sales activities and commercial interactions and the claims recite user interfaces to display and receive data, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because selecting a payment instrument benefit (such as reward points associated with a credit card), accepting the charge, and updating by modification of the database associated with the payment instrument based at least in part on the selection of the payment instrument benefit is a sales activity and commercial interaction. The user interfaces recited in the claims are not analyzed as being directed towards an abstract idea. The user interfaces are analyzed as additional elements.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 16-20 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claim solves technical problems with financial institutions providing payment instruments that offer a variety of fixed services while having multiple payment instruments and the user may determine which payment instrument to user for a particular transaction and the claim improves computer functionality by providing a user interface that allows users to configure available services that are applicable to a payment instrument reducing the quantity of payment instruments that a user would physically carry and improving speed and configurability of computer system by using data structures, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Determine which payment instrument to user for a particular transaction and reducing the quantity of payment instruments that a user would physically carry solves a commercial problem, but it does not provide detail necessary to one or ordinary skill in the art on how a problem rooted in technology is solved. Providing a user interface that allows users to configure available services that are applicable to a payment instrument using a data structure helps solve commercial problems associated with users carrying multiple cards and manufacturer costs. However, it is unclear how merely using a user interface to display data and a data structure to modify data improves computer functionality or speed. Therefore, merely using a computing device with a user interface that allows a user input modifications as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 20-22 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the claims are directed to significantly more because the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. 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 § 2106.05(f)); ii. simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or iv. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). See MPEP § 2106.05 (I)(A).
Even when considering additional elements both individually and in combination (e.g. computing device, processor, and user interface), the claims do not appear to improve computer functionality by merely using a user interface to modify benefit services associated with payment instruments. The claims are not analyzed as well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not invoke the Berkheimer Memo. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the claims recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 23 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the claim amendments overcome the rejection under §103, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 1-15 and 21-25 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 21 recite: …the services configuration indicating the plurality of benefit services that are applied to a respective transaction,…;… and apply the updated services configuration to transaction data associated with the payment instrument to determine whether one or more of the plurality of benefit services apply to a transaction…, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of a respective transaction is the same or different from the subsequent recitation of a transaction. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-15 are directed towards a method, and claims 21-25 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
…modify a services configuration for a payment instrument associated with a user identifier, … one or more supplemental payment instruments and a plurality of benefit services associated with an individual one of the one or more supplemental payment instruments, the services configuration indicating they plurality of benefit services that are applied to a respective transaction, …wherein the data structure comprises a list of one or more benefit services for the payment instrument;
receive a modification of the services configuration…, wherein the modification of the services configuration comprises a selection of at least an individual one of the plurality of benefit services associated with at least one of the one or more supplemental payment instruments;
…a charge for the services configuration based at least in part on the modification of the services configuration;
receive an acceptance of the charge…;
update the services configuration by: modifying one or more data elements of the data structure based at least in part on the modification of the services configuration…, the modifying of the one or more data elements generating an updated services configuration that includes the selected plurality of benefit services; and …
and apply the updated services configuration to transaction data associated with the payment instrument to determine whether one or more of the plurality of benefit services apply to a transaction.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to sales activities and commercial interactions such as modifying payment instruments with benefits by modifying a service configuration for a payment instrument with benefit services for a transaction by selecting a benefit service associated with the payment instrument, accepting a charge, and updating the service configuration. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: (Claim 1);
display a user interface that is configured to…, wherein the user interface comprises…, the services configuration being stored as a data structure associated with the payment instrument of the user identifier;..., from the user interface; display an updated user interface that includes…, ;… from the updated user interface…; … from the user interface …; and by storing the updated services configuration in association with the user identifier at a database based at least in part on the acceptance of the charge; (Claims 1, 8, and 21 );
wherein the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: … from the user interface with a remote computing device (Claims 2 and 22);
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least…(Claim 3 and 23);
wherein the updated user interface displays (Claim 5, 12, and 25);
displaying the updated user interface further causes the computing device to at least: (Claims 6 and 13);
by a client device, …by the client device…; …by the client device…; …by the client device…; …by the client device…; …by the client device… (Claim 8);
by the client device, …from the user interface (Claim 9);
by the client device… (Claim 10);
wherein the user interface includes …the user interface comprises ...(Claim 15);
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to at least: (Claim 21).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: (Claim 1);
display a user interface that is configured to…, wherein the user interface comprises…, the services configuration being stored as a data structure associated with the payment instrument of the user identifier;..., from the user interface; display an updated user interface that includes…, ;… from the updated user interface…; … from the user interface …; and by storing the updated services configuration in association with the user identifier at a database based at least in part on the acceptance of the charge; (Claims 1, 8, and 21);
wherein the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: … from the user interface with a remote computing device (Claims 2 and 22);
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least…(Claim 3 and 23);
wherein the updated user interface displays (Claim 5, 12, and 25);
displaying the updated user interface further causes the computing device to at least: (Claims 6 and 13);
by a client device, …by the client device…; …by the client device…; …by the client device…; …by the client device…; …by the client device… (Claim 8);
by the client device, …from the user interface (Claim 9);
by the client device… (Claim 10);
wherein the user interface includes …the user interface comprises ...(Claim 15);
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to at least: (Claim 21).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brill et al. (US Pub. No. 20150348083 A1, hereinafter “Brill”) in view of Ortiz et al. (US Pub. No. 20180293573 A1, hereinafter “Ortiz”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 21
Brill discloses a system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least (Brill, [0413]: processor and memory; [0419]: computing device):
display a user interface that is configured to modify a services configuration for a payment instrument associated with a user identifier, wherein the user interface comprises one or more supplemental payment instruments and a plurality of benefit services associated with an individual one of the one or more supplemental payment instruments, the services configuration indicating a plurality of benefit services that are applied to a respective transaction, the services configuration being …associated with the payment instrument of the user identifier, wherein …a list of one or more benefit services for the payment instrument; (Brill, [0023]: presenting a graphical user interface where a user's financial transaction data are presented, wherein the financial transaction data were obtained from a financial institution that maintains a financial account on behalf of the user (e.g. a credit card account, a bank account, a checking account, a savings account, a personal finance program account, a loan account), and presenting a savings opportunity, in proximity to the financial transaction data, wherein the savings opportunity relates to the financial transaction data and generating and displaying a link may be provided in a graphical user interface to the user's financial account, to a transaction assessment user interface to compare the transaction to a plurality of alternative offers; [0021]: user's financial account may be a credit card or bank account; [0038]: analyzing the transaction data for a savings opportunity indication. A filter may be applied to a database of savings opportunities prior to matching one to the user based on the savings opportunity indication. The savings opportunity may be displayed );
receive a modification of the services configuration from the user interface, wherein the modification of the services configuration comprises a selection of at least an individual one of the plurality of benefit services associated with at least one of the one or more supplemental payment instruments (Brill, [0023]: saving opportunity including alternative offers; [0024]: presenting via user interface an opportunity to assess alternative offerings related to a financial transaction from a user's financial account, wherein the financial transaction is related to a presently selected offering; [0025]: and in response to the selection of the opportunity, redirecting the user to an alternative offering graphical user interface adapted to present the user with alternative offerings; [0398]: adjusting at least one parameter of the at least one reward, offer, or incentive);
display an updated user interface that includes a charge for the services configuration based at least in part on the modification of the services configuration (Brill, [0025]: and if the alternative offering presents an improvement in comparison to the presently selected offering, the alternative offering may be presented in the alternative offering graphical user interface. The bill details may include a transaction amount and user name; [0398]: adjusting at least one parameter of the at least one reward, offer, or incentive);
receive an acceptance of the charge from the updated user interface (Brill, [0043]: A response to the savings opportunity is tracked in order to receive an indication of whether or not the savings opportunity has been accepted; [0023]: saving opportunity including alternative offers; [0048]: accepting a response from the user to the presentation of the savings opportunity; [0165]: The user may be given the option to proceed to acceptance of terms and conditions as well as payment for services; [0280]: the like-dislike button may provide the user with the option to select an offer or not, that is, to accept as liking the offer);
update the services configuration by: modifying one or more data elements … based at least in part on the modification of the services configuration from the user interface, the modifying of the one or more data elements generating an updated services configuration that includes the selected plurality of benefit services; storing the updated services configuration in association with the user identifier at a database based at least in part on the acceptance of the charge; and apply the updated services configuration to transaction data associated with the payment instrument to determine whether one or more of the plurality of benefit services apply to a transaction (Brill, [0056]: adjusting at least one parameter of the at least one offer prior to presentation to the user and adjusting may be done in accordance with one or more inputs; [0165]: user may accept and pay for service and tracking criteria , determine on an updated basis which alternative service, and output may be stored in the tracking database; [0025]: presenting, in a user financial account graphical user interface, an opportunity to assess alternative offerings related to a transaction that is presented within the account graphical user interface, wherein the transaction is related to a presently selected offering, and in response to the selection of the opportunity, redirecting the user to an alternative offering graphical user interface adapted to present the user with alternative offerings and if the alternative offering presents an improvement in comparison to the presently selected offering, the alternative offering may be presented in the alternative offering graphical user interface; [0280]: change attributes of offer; [0231]: redeeming offer by the user receiving an automated discount when a purchase is made or a discount that is applied off of a prior pre-purchased amount; [0023]: the savings opportunity relates to the financial transaction data).
Brill does not teach:
…stored as a data structure…;… the data structure comprises…;
… modifying …of the data structure.
However, Ortiz teaches:
…stored as a data structure…;… the data structure comprises…(Ortiz, [0397]: store in the data structure);
… modifying …of the data structure (Ortiz, [0426]: update accounts stored on the various rewards data structures; [0428]: redeem an offer by updating a points management mechanism that may be managed on the private rewards data structure).
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 the service configuration and modification of Brill with storing and modifying a data structure as taught by Ortiz because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Brill would continue to teach the service configuration and modification except that now storing and modifying a data structure is taught according to the teachings of Ortiz in order to dynamically maintain data structures storing data. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Ortiz, [0397]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 22
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: identify the user identifier of the payment instrument based at least in part on authenticating a credential received from the user interface with a remote computing device (Brill, [0025]: extract bill details including user name and financial account includes credit card account; [0059]: authorization via remote computer; [0165]: logging in to a user's service account after obtaining authorization from the user for release of such information; [0405]: receive authorization from user interface).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 23
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: generate a hybrid list of services by comparing a first list of benefit parameters for a first payment instrument to a second list of benefit parameters for a second payment instrument (Brill, [0183]: when the service offering is a credit card service, the service usage data and data related to the alternative service offering may include rewards; [0184]: rewards includes cash or points and comparing and ranking credit card offerings; [0185]: comparing a plurality of credit card datasets; [0246]: display available rewards listings; [0194]: The ranking facility 128 may compare datasets based on rewards associated with a credit card offering).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 24
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the hybrid list of services comprises a higher benefit parameter for each category from a comparison of the first list of benefit parameters and the second list of benefit parameters (Brill, FIG. 4, [0185]: A comparison of the alternative credit card datasets with the normalized credit card usage dataset may reveal if an alternative credit card is better than the user's current credit card 418. Comparing may include ranking the alternative credit cards according to an aggregate score; [0194]: The ranking facility 128 may compare datasets based on rewards associated with a credit card offering; [0175]: best score).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 25
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the updated user interface displays the hybrid list of services and includes an indicator to highlight the higher benefit parameter originated from the first list of benefit parameters or the second list of benefit parameters (Brill, [0245]: update rewards based on new transactions; [0166]: determine on an updated basis which alternative service offering is better than the user's current service 214; [0180]: The user may be alerted when an alternative service offering that is better than the user's current service is available; FIG. 4, [0185]: A comparison of the alternative credit card datasets with the normalized credit card usage dataset may reveal if an alternative credit card is better than the user's current credit card 418. Comparing may include ranking the alternative credit cards according to an aggregate score; [0194]: The ranking facility 128 may compare datasets based on rewards associated with a credit card offering; [0175]: best score).
Regarding claims 6 and 13
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the payment instrument is a first payment instrument, and displaying the updated user interface further causes the computing device to at least: determine the charge for the modification of the services configuration based at least in part on a change in the services configuration from an initial services configuration and a weightage-based rule associated with the change in the services configuration (Brill, [0185]: an aggregate score for each of the plurality of alternative credit card normalized datasets may be calculated, where the score may be used for ranking. As described previously, users may specify which components of the dataset or terms & conditions to include in the calculation for the aggregate score and with what weighting to include them; [0194]: The ranking facility 128 may optionally consider weights of certain dataset factors in comparing datasets; [0025]: and if the alternative offering presents an improvement in comparison to the presently selected offering, the alternative offering may be presented in the alternative offering graphical user interface. The bill details may include a transaction amount and user name; [0398]: adjusting at least one parameter of the at least one reward, offer, or incentive; [0184]: weighting may be used to rank credit card offerings).
Regarding claim 7 and 14
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the change in the services configuration is determined by comparing the initial services configuration for the payment instrument to the updated services configuration for the payment instrument (Brill, [0165]: obtaining and normalizing alternative service offering data and comparing it to the user's needs and preferences to determine on an updated basis which alternative service offering best fits the user's needs and preferences; [0055]: providing offers to dynamically change offer parameters; FIG. 4, [0185]: A comparison of the alternative credit card datasets with the normalized credit card usage dataset may reveal if an alternative credit card is better than the user's current credit card 418. Comparing may include ranking the alternative credit cards according to an aggregate score; [0194]: The ranking facility 128 may compare datasets based on rewards associated with a credit card offering).
Regarding claim 15
The combination of Brill and Ortiz teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the user interface includes an indicator for the payment instrument, and the user interface comprises an array of selectable payment instruments (Brill, [0021]: user's financial account may be a credit card account and a bank account; [0022]: displaying a link may be provided in a graphical user interface to the user's financial account; [0185]: plurality of credit cards and provide option to select credit card; [0241]: button to click savings opportunity for transaction).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Shah et al. (US Pub. No. 20160225011 A1) related to tracking purchases and rewards for users of credit cards, Chandran et al. (US Pub. No. 20080059317 A1) related to prescreened credit card offers, and non-patent literature, “Automatic Card Selection System for Maximum Cash Back,” related to a payment system that selects the best credit card with which to make a purchase in order to earn the maximum rewards from the credit card provider.
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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights