FINAL REJECTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed September 30, 2025 Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30,2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed an abstract idea and “provide an improvement to the technical field of financial transactions by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception because they include specific limitations that do not result in the monopolization of any allegedly-claimed abstract idea.” Applicant states the improvements include “a solution which allows an entity, such as a government entity, to manage financial transactions based on an intent-to-spend fungible funds, or use a voucher, coupon, offer, or the like, based on a set of rules" and "provides solutions for creating an intent-to-spend account and creating a prepaid payment instrument for use according to an intent-to-spend fungible funds based on a set of rules. See Subject Application at [0036].”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to creating a prepaid payment instrument and enrolling a user in an intent-to-spend program, categorized under certain methods of human activity grouping. Note. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. 6.04(a).
Additionally, the particulars/algorithms to improve the technology is not described in the claims or specification.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant submits that Garfinkle’s serial number is not based on Garfinkle’s proxy account data use restrictions.
However, the examiner notes that the claim recites “wherein the intent-to-spend account comprises a unique intent identification based on the set of rules,” which is disclosed by Garfinkle. The reference describes receiving use restrictions and associating them with a serial number. Also, an encrypted serial number and checkable data may be associated with the use restrictions (paragraphs [0026] and [0027]). The resulting encrypted serial number joins the encrypted serial number with checkable data. Hence, the resulting encrypted serial number is based on the use restrictions as it includes the serial number (associated with the use restriction) and the checkable data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recite receiving a message from the message comprising a request to create an intent-to-spend account and a set of rules defining a spending methodology for fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account; creating the intent-to-spend account, wherein the intent-to-spend account comprises a unique intent identification based on the set of rules; sending the unique intent identification to the intent-issuing entity; sending a notification to a participating financial institution, the notification comprising information relating to the intent-to-spend account and the set of rules defining the spending methodology for the fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account; receiving encrypted identification information for a client onboarded by the participating financial institution to participate in an intent-to-spend program associated with the intent-to-spend account, information associated with a payment instrument of the client, wherein the payment instrument is linked to the intent-to-spend account, and information associated with the intent-to-spend account and the set of rules defining the spending methodology; validating the encrypted identification information; based on a successful validation: creating, by the intent money manager computer, a prepaid payment instrument for the client; funding the prepaid payment instrument up to an amount specified by the intent-issuing entity based on the unique intent identification; posting the amount to the intent-to-spend account created; and sending information associated with the prepaid payment instrument and the amount to the participating financial institution. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar language.
The dependent claims recite steps such as the message further comprises at least one of a budget for the intent-to-spend account or a number of targeted users of the intent-to-spend account, validating the posted amount against the budget of the intent-to spend account, and the encrypted identification information comprises a national identification.
Hence, claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to creating a prepaid payment instrument. Claims 8-14 are directed to enrolling a user in an intent-to-spend program. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that is categorized under the fundamental economic practices grouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims recite the following additional elements: intent money manager computer, payment instrument, and digital wallet. The specification of the present invention states the following:
[0022]As used herein, the term “computing device” or “computer device” may refer to one or more electronic devices that are configured to directly or indirectly communicate with or over one or more networks. A computing device may be a mobile device, a desktop computer, and/or the like. As an example, a mobile device may include a cellular phone (e.g., a smartphone or standard cellular phone), a portable computer, a wearable device (e.g., watches, glasses, lenses, clothing, and/or the like), a personal digital assistant (PDA), and/or other like devices. The computing device may not be a mobile device, such as a desktop computer. Furthermore, the term “computer” may refer to any computing device that includes the necessary components to send, receive, process, and/or output data, and normally includes a display device, a processor, a memory, an input device, a network interface, and/or the like.
[0024]As used herein, an “electronic wallet,” “digital wallet” or “mobile wallet” can store user profile information, payment information (including tokens and/or payment cards), bank account information, and/or the like and can be used in a variety of transactions, such as but not limited to eCommerce, social networks, money transfer/personal payments, mobile commerce, proximity payments, gaming, and/or the like for retail purchases, digital goods purchases, utility payments, purchasing games or gaming credits from gaming websites, transferring funds between users, and/or the like.
[0041] …The payment instrument may be a physical card or a digitally-stored card in a digital wallet.
However, the claims do not include additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than recitation of generic components that serves to perform generic functions. These functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Moreover, the limitations generically, referring to creating a prepaid payment instrument and enrolling a user in an intent-to-spend program, categorized under the fundamental economic practices grouping do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0158593 to Garfinkle et al. (“Garfinkle”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,971,862 to Han et al. (“Han”).
As per claim 1, Garfinkle discloses receiving, by an intent money manager computer, a message from an intent-issuing entity, the message comprising a request to create an intent-to-spend account and a set of rules defining a spending methodology for fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account (Fig. 3, elements 302 and 304; [0016] - A customer 102 may interact with a computer system 104 to obtain proxy account data. According to various embodiments, the computer system 104 may constitute all or part of a computer system of a financial institution (e.g., the financial institution providing the customer 102 with the account to be drawn on using the proxy account data). The customer 102 may be in communication with the system 104, for example, utilizing a secure connection and/or user interface that may, in various embodiments, already be in place for the customer 102 to conduct banking business with the financial institution.); creating, by the intent money manager computer, the intent-to-spend account, wherein the intent-to-spend account comprises a unique intent identification based on the set of rules (Fig. 3, elements 306 and 308); sending, by the intent money manager computer, the unique intent identification to the intent-issuing entity send the encrypted serial number to an outer financial institution computer system paragraph ([0013]- send the encrypted serial number to an outer financial institution computer system (outer system); receiving, by the intent money manager computer, encrypted identification information for a client onboarded by the participating financial institution to participate in an intent-to-spend program associated with the intent-to-spend account information associated with a payment instrument of the client, wherein the payment instrument is linked to the intent-to-spend account, and information associated with the intent-to-spend account and the set of rules defining the spending methodology (paragraphs [0013]-The inner system may encrypt the serial number and send the encrypted serial number to an outer financial institution computer system (outer system) [0027] and [0028]); validating, by the intent money manager computer, the encrypted identification information (paragraph [0023] -the outer system 108 may join the encrypted serial number with checkable data. The checkable data may be any suitable data that can be later used by the outer system 108 to verify the encrypted serial number); based on a successful validation: creating, by the intent money manager computer, a prepaid payment instrument for the client; funding, by the intent money manager computer, the prepaid payment instrument up to an amount specified by the intent-issuing entity based on the unique intent identification; posting, by the intent money manager computer, the amount to the intent-to-spend account created by the intent money manager computer; and sending, by the intent money manager computer, information associated with the prepaid payment instrument and the amount to the participating financial institution (paragraph [0024] -The result of this encryption may be, or may be transformed into, the proxy account data. The proxy account data may subsequently be communicated to the customer 102 in any suitable manner. For example, the proxy account data may be printed to a paper or card, which may be subsequently mailed to the customer 102 (e.g., with an account statement). Also, see paragraphs [0012] and [0017] of Garfinkle.
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--based on a successful validation." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
Garfinkle does not expressly disclose sending, by the intent money manager computer, a notification to a participating financial institution, the notification comprising information relating to the intent-to-spend account and the set of rules defining the spending methodology for the fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account.
Han discloses sending, by the intent money manager computer, a notification to a participating financial institution, the notification comprising information relating to the intent-to-spend account and the set of rules defining the spending methodology for the fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account (col. 25, ll. 46-50 – the receiver processor server may send the funding query request to the receiver institution server (bank server); col. 4, ll. 41-47 – the receiver processor may receive a request to generate a virtual bank account (VBAN) associated with a user The receiver processor may then identify…a unique container ledger account identifier; col. 2, ll. 19-22 – the receiver processor may programmatically issue cards, configure card permissions, and set authorization parameters (e.g. spending limits..)).
Garfinkle and Han both disclose virtual/proxy accounts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Han into the system of Garfinkle. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose wherein the message further comprises at least one of a budget for the intent-to-spend account or a number of targeted users of the intent-to-spend account (see claim1 above -Garfinkle – use restrictions; Han – spending limit etc.).
As per claim 3, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose based on the successful validation, validating, by the intent money manager computer, the posted amount against the budget of the intent-to-spend account (see claim 1 above; the created proxy account/virtual account).
As per claim 4, Garfinkle in view of Han do not expressly disclose wherein the intent-issuing entity is a governing entity. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the entity to be a governing as this is a matter of design choice (see In re Seid, 161, F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPS 1947).
As per claim 5, Garfinkle discloses the payment instrument is at least one of a physical payment card or a digital payment card stored in a digital wallet (paragraph [0024] – the proxy account data may be printed to a paper or card).
As per claim 6, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose the prepaid payment instrument is a virtual payment card, and wherein the prepaid payment instrument is not visible to the client (see claim 1 above).
As per claim 7, Garfinkle the encrypted identification information comprises a national identification (see claim 1 above - serial number).
As per claim 8, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose receiving, by an intent money manager computer, a message from an intent-issuing entity, the message comprising a request to create an intent-to-spend account and a set of rules defining a spending methodology for fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account; creating, by the intent money manager computer, the intent-to-spend account based on the message; and sending, by the intent money manager computer and based on the creating of the intent-to-spend account, a notification to a participating financial institution, wherein the notification comprises information relating to the intent-to-spend account and the set of rules defining the spending methodology for the fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account, and wherein the participating financial institution, upon receipt of the notification, enables users to enroll in an intent-to-spend program associated with the intent-to-spend account via at least one banking channel. See claim 1 rejection above.
As per claim 9, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose wherein the message further comprises at least one of a budget for the intent-to-spend account or a number of targeted users of the intent-to-spend account (see claim 8 above -Garfinkle – use restrictions; Han – spending limit etc.).
As per claim 10, Garfinkle in view of Han do not expressly disclose wherein the intent-issuing entity is a governing entity. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the entity to be a governing as this is a matter of design choice (see In re Seid, 161, F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPS 1947).
As per claim 11, Garfinkle in view of Han do not expressly disclose wherein users are to accept a terms and conditions agreement before enrollment in the intent-to-spend program associated with the intent-to-spend account. The “wherein clause” has been considered; however, it merely expresses the intended results. See MPEP§ 2111.04. It is not a step that needs to be performed and does not patentable distinguish over the disclosure of the prior art
As per claim 12, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose the at least one banking channel is one of branch banking, electronic banking, or self-service banking (see claim 8 above – financial institution of Garfinkle; bank of Han).
As per claim 13, Garfinkle in view of Han disclose the method of claim 8. The references do not expressly disclose wherein the set of rules further define at least one of a number or a type of transactions eligible for an offer. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of what type of rule. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a set of rules regardless of type of data included because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because of the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 14, Garfinkle in view of Han do not expressly wherein the participating financial institution receives the notification based on a subscription to the intent money manager computer. However, the claims recite the conditional /optional language “--based on a subscription." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
Claim 15 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 16-20 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 3-7 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights