DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on April 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 15, 16, 19, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
2. As per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the clams are not directed to the abstract idea of creating a prepaid payment instrument or enrolling a user in an intent-to-spend program.
It is asserted that “[c]laim 1 provides an improvement to the technical field of financial transactions that do not result in the monopolization of any allegedly-claimed abstract idea.” According to Applicant, the application provides an improvement to the technical field by allowing “an entity, such as a government entity, to manage financial transaction based on an intent-to-spend fungible funds, or use a voucher, 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.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of posting charges to a prepaid payment instrument, which is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. As per the improvement, the claimed improvement is to the business method and not to the computer technology.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of posting charges to a prepaid payment instrument. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. 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. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to posting charges to a prepaid payment instrument. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A computer-implemented method for managing financial transactions the computer-implemented method comprising:
creating, by an intent money manager computer, a prepaid payment instrument associated with an intent-to-spend account, wherein creating the prepaid payment instrument comprises:
receiving, by the 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,
creating, by the intent money manager computer, a prepaid payment instrument associated with the intent-to-spend account; and
funding, by the intent money manager computer, the prepaid payment instrument up to an amount specified by the intent-issuing entity;
processing, by a payment network, a payment request using the prepaid payment instrument, wherein processing the payment request comprises:
receiving, by the payment network, the payment request;
obtaining, by the payment network, intent information from the intent money manager computer, the intent information comprising the set of rules defining the spending methodology for fungible funds deposited in the intent-to-spend account;
sending, by the payment network, an authorization message to an issuer, the authorization message including the intent information and one or more eligible charges of the payment request;
receiving, by the payment network, approval from the issuer based on sufficient funds of the prepaid payment instrument for the one or more eligible charges of the payment request; and
posting, by the payment network, the one or more eligible charges to the prepaid payment instrument based on the approval.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the prepaid payment instrument, payment network, and intent money manager computer are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of posting charges to a prepaid payment instrument. Viewed as a whole, the use of prepaid payment instrument, payment network, and intent money manager computer as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the prepaid payment instrument, payment network, and intent money manager computer to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of posting charges to a prepaid payment instrument Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of posting charges to a prepaid payment instrument Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as posting, by the intent money manager computer, the post amount against the budget of the intent-to-spend account;
receiving, by the intent money manager computer, encrypted identification information for a client of the intent-to-spend account;
validating, by the intent money manager computer, the encrypted identification, wherein the encrypted identification information comprises a national identification.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 10/402,804 to Wittern, III et al. The reference is directed using an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card to make purchases at the vending machine. The card includes limits on the “type of purchases based on information collected from the food stamp government program rules and regulations.” Abstract.
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