DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on December 19, 2025.
• Claims 1, 9, and 15-16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9, that the claims provide a technical improvement and that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, incorporate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and recite additional features that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim 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. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processing circuits to perform claim functions; a first user device; and a second user device such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002], describing problems related to unbanked/underbanked individuals who cannot open certain accounts and challenges with giving access to these account services for these unbanked/underbanked individuals.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant has not provided an explanation why the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitations. Rather, Applicant has set forth claim limitations and made conclusory statements that the art does not teach the claim limitations. The Examiner therefore refers Applicant to the 103 rejection below, which addresses how the prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Furthermore regarding the arguments regarding the amended claim limitations, the Examiner notes that the arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to a system (claims 1 and 9) and a method (claim 15). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 9, and 15 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 9, and 15 recite, in part, a system and a method of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites receive a request from a first user associated with a first account of the first user held by a provider to create an allocated user portion within the first account; create the allocated user portion within the first account by partitioning an allocated portion of funds within the first account for use by a second user based on the request from the first user device; generate credentials for the second user configured to allow the second user to temporarily perform one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds of the allocated user portion within the first account and to disallow the second user from performing actions associated with a non-allocated portion of funds within the first account that are outside of the allocated user portion, the one or more actions including making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user; wherein both the allocated portion of funds and the non-allocated portion of funds within the first account are accessible to the first user while the credentials allow the second user to temporarily perform the one or more actions; and transmit the credentials to one of the first user or the second user.
Claim 9 recites create an allocated user portion within a first account of a first user held by a provider by partitioning an allocated portion of funds within the first account for use by a second user; generate credentials for the second user configured to allow the second user to temporarily perform one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds of the allocated user portion within the first account and to disallow the second user from performing actions associated with a non-allocated portion of funds within the first account that are outside of the allocated user portion, the one or more actions including making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user; wherein both the allocated portion of funds and the non- allocated portion of funds within the first account are accessible to the first user while the credentials allow the second user to temporarily perform the one or more actions; and cause the one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds to be performed based on receiving the credentials from the second user.
Claim 15 recite similar limitations as claim 9 above.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for providing a shared payment account for a first user and a second user and allowing the second user to access funds under limited conditions, which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a computing system, a first user device and a second user device do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processing circuits to perform claim functions; a first user device; and a second user device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions receiving a request to create an allocated portion, create the allocated portion, generating credentials, and send credentials to a first user or a second user) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 4 and 11 simply further describes the technological environment. Furthermore, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are ineligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10984411 B1 (“Hayes”) in view of US 20230105089 A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes discloses a computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processing circuits to (System including Mobile Wallet Provider and Issuer, see at least col. 27, lines 11-23 and FIG. 24A, Proxy Approver System 24100 including Mobile Wallet Provider 19020 and Issuer 19060. The mobile wallet provider 19020 may be an organization that provides the mobile wallet 19010 application to its customers. See at least col. 22, lines 52-60 and FIG. 21A, Mobile Wallet Provider 19020. mobile wallet provider 2120 may be an example implementation of computing device, see at least col. 5, lines 47-62. Processor and memory having instructions, see at least col. 41, line 48 to col. 42, line 15.):
receive a request from a first user device of a first user associated with a first account of the first user held by a provider to create an allocated user portion within the first account (When the mobile wallet owner clicks the issue a proxy button, the mobile wallet transfers the data to the proxy approval system, which may comprise the mobile wallet provider and the issuer, to the mobile wallet provider and requests permission to create a proxy element. The mobile wallet provider may submit the request to the payment element issuer which may be selected in the user interface element. See at least col. 27, lines 11-26 and FIG. 24A, step 24011, 24012, and 24021.);
create the allocated user portion within the first account by partitioning an allocated portion of funds within the first account for use by a second user based on the request from the first user device (The element issuer records the proxy element request and grants the request in operation, if proper. The mobile wallet provider may then inform the requester of the grant from the element issuer to the originator mobile wallet in operation. In a configuration, once the proxy element is granted, it may be considered active until an expiration date, has a zero monetary amount remaining balance, or has some other form of terminating activity or status. See at least col. 27, lines 24-35, and FIG. 24A, step 24031 and 24022. Conditions of use of the payment element for the borrow to use includes a max amount. See at least col. 23, lines 49-58.);
credentials for the second user configured to allow the second user to temporarily perform one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds of the allocated user portion within the first account (The mobile wallet owner may enter the total amount, for instance $500, of the proxy element. She may select a payment element from among those available in her mobile wallet, for instance, a Visa card. The payment element may only present the payment elements that allow creating a proxy element since some payment elements issuers may not allow creating a proxy element. See at least col. 26, lines 27-44 and see also FIG. 23.) and
to disallow the second user from performing actions associated with a non-allocated portion of funds within the first account that are outside of the allocated user portion (When a receiving mobile wallet uses the proxy, the mobile wallet, a merchant device, and/or the issuer of the payment element in the proxy may enforce the use specified in the limited use parameters. For instance, if the token may be used in a specified area only, the mobile wallet may block the token's use outside of the specified area based on the device location information (e.g., GPS). If the token can be used for purchasing a product up to $500, the issuer may deny the payment authorization when the merchant requests the authorization (in the case that the proxy is known to the issuer.) See at least col. 21, lines 41-51.),
wherein both the allocated portion of funds and the non- allocated portion of funds within the first account are accessible to the first user while the credentials allow the second user to temporarily perform the one or more actions (An incapacitated trusting user may still provide the ability for a trusted user to access the trusting user’s digital wallet and utilize its contents. The trusted person may access the trusting person’s digital wallet and gain access to the cards or other contents. See at least col. 28, line 46 to col. 29, line 18.); and
transmit the credentials to one of the first user device of the first user or a second user device of the second user (The mobile wallet provider may then issue credentials of the proxy element to the recipient mobile wallet in operation 24023. See at least col. 27, lines 46-57 and FIG. 24A, step 24023.).
While Hayes discloses credentials for a second user, Hayes does not expressly disclose generate credentials. Furthermore, Hayes does not expressly disclose the one or more actions including making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user.
However, Lee discloses generate credentials (generating a virtual card number, see at least [0117].);
the one or more actions including making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user (The financial management system may link or associate a primary account accessible by a user with a secondary account (or a sub-account) accessible by the same user or a different user. The primary account and the secondary account (or the sub-account) may provide different privileges. Merely by way of example, the user of the primary account may prescribe rules regarding who, when, how, and/or the amount of funds that may be deposited into and/or dispensed from the primary account and/or the secondary account (or the sub-account), approve or reject a transaction associated with the primary account and/or the secondary account (or the sub-account)… see at least [0051].).
From the teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hayes to generate the credentials of Hayes, using the generation technique as taught by Lee, and to modify the one or more actions of Hayes to include making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user, as taught by Lee, in order to improve control of secondary account user transactions while preventing unlimited account access (see Lee at least at [0005]-[0006]), and to protect sensitive information of child account users (see Lee at least at [0007]-[0008]), and in order to improve ability of ensuring money gifted to a child is used properly (see Lee at least at [0009]-[00012]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayes and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hayes further discloses receive the credentials from the second user device; and cause the one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds to be performed based on receiving the credentials (The recipient mobile wallet then may submit the received credentials of the (credentialed) proxy element to a wallet element receiving device of the ecommerce system. An example of an ecommerce system includes a system which communicates with the mobile wallet, such as a POS device, a W2W compliant mobile wallet, and an ATM. The ecommerce system may then request a payment authorization of the proxy element to the element issuer (i.e., financial institution) with the credential in operation. The element issuer may then issue an authorization in operation after verifying the proxy element based on the data stored during the process of creating the proxy element. The issuer may update the proxy value in operation if a portion of it is used or disable it if there is no more value or the expiration date has passed. See at least col. 27, line 58 to col. 28, line 6 and FIG. 24B, step 24051 and 24032).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hayes and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hayes further discloses upon receiving the credentials from the second user device, generate a graphical user interface including one or more of an allocated balance, an allocated user portion limit, or a selectable option to set up a recurring payment from the allocated user portion of the first account; and transmit the graphical user interface to the second user device (An example screen shot/display that illustrates an embodiment of a user interface for using received proxy elements or proxy payment elements (PPE). The display shows the presence of two payment elements (a credit card and a debit card), two non-payment elements (a membership card and a gym pass), and proxy payment element conditions. The mobile wallet user may select the proxy element and tap the mobile device to a POS device to submit it. See at least col. 28, lines 26-34 and FIG. 25 displaying $500 limit at Proxy Payment Element Conditions 25030.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hayes and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hayes further discloses the request received from the first user device includes one or more of a maximum allocated balance, an allocated user portion time limit, or one or more capabilities to be given to the second user (The mobile wallet owner may enter the total amount, for instance $500, of the proxy element. She may select a payment element from among those available in her mobile wallet, for instance, a Visa card. The payment element may only present the payment elements that allow creating a proxy element since some payment elements issuers may not allow creating a proxy element. See at least col. 26, lines 27-44, see also FIG. 23. And see also col. 27, line 58 to col. 28, line 6. Usage condition includes expiration date or time, see at least col. 23, lines 39-67. ).
Regarding claim 9, Hayes discloses a computing system comprising: one or more processing circuits including one or more processors and one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the one or more processing circuits to (System including Mobile Wallet Provider and Issuer, see at least col. 27, lines 11-23 and FIG. 24A, Proxy Approver System 24100 including Mobile Wallet Provider 19020 and Issuer 19060. The mobile wallet provider 19020 may be an organization that provides the mobile wallet 19010 application to its customers. See at least col. 22, lines 52-60 and FIG. 21A, Mobile Wallet Provider 19020. mobile wallet provider 2120 may be an example implementation of computing device, see at least col. 5, lines 47-62. Processor and memory having instructions, see at least col. 41, line 48 to col. 42, line 15.):
create an allocated user portion within a first account of a first user held by a provider by partitioning an allocated portion of funds within the first account for use by a second user (The mobile wallet owner may enter the total amount, for instance $500, of the proxy element. She may select a payment element from among those available in her mobile wallet, for instance, a Visa card. The payment element may only present the payment elements that allow creating a proxy element since some payment elements issuers may not allow creating a proxy element. See at least col. 26, lines 27-44 and see also FIG. 23. Once the owner specifies all the necessary entries, she may initiate issuance by, e.g., clicking or touching the “issue a proxy icon”, or interacting with some other user interface element. The mobile wallet then produces a proxy element with the mobile wallet provider and/or payment element issuers. The mobile wallet may send the proxy to other mobile wallet securely by email, text message, wallet-to-wallet communication, or other method, and the receiving mobile wallet may use it as specified in the usage conditions. In some cases, the user may specify the receiving mobile wallet in the proxy element producer and the mobile wallet may send it to the receiving mobile wallet. See at least col. 26, line 66 to col. 27, line 10.);
credentials for the second user configured to allow the second user to temporarily perform one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds of the allocated user portion within the first account (The mobile wallet owner may enter the total amount, for instance $500, of the proxy element. She may select a payment element from among those available in her mobile wallet, for instance, a Visa card. The payment element may only present the payment elements that allow creating a proxy element since some payment elements issuers may not allow creating a proxy element. See at least col. 26, lines 27-44 and see also FIG. 23.) and
to disallow the second user from performing actions associated with a non-allocated portion of funds within the first account that are outside of the allocated user portion (When a receiving mobile wallet uses the proxy, the mobile wallet, a merchant device, and/or the issuer of the payment element in the proxy may enforce the use specified in the limited use parameters. For instance, if the token may be used in a specified area only, the mobile wallet may block the token's use outside of the specified area based on the device location information (e.g., GPS). If the token can be used for purchasing a product up to $500, the issuer may deny the payment authorization when the merchant requests the authorization (in the case that the proxy is known to the issuer.) See at least col. 21, lines 41-51.),
wherein both the allocated portion of funds and the non- allocated portion of funds within the first account are accessible to the first user while the credentials allow the second user to temporarily perform the one or more actions (An incapacitated trusting user may still provide the ability for a trusted user to access the trusting user’s digital wallet and utilize its contents. The trusted person may access the trusting person’s digital wallet and gain access to the cards or other contents. See at least col. 28, line 46 to col. 29, line 18.); and
cause the one or more actions associated with the allocated portion of funds to be performed based on receiving the credentials from the second user (The recipient mobile wallet then may submit the received credentials of the (credentialed) proxy element to a wallet element receiving device of the ecommerce system. An example of an ecommerce system includes a system which communicates with the mobile wallet, such as a POS device, a W2W compliant mobile wallet, and an ATM. The ecommerce system may then request a payment authorization of the proxy element to the element issuer (i.e., financial institution) with the credential in operation. The element issuer may then issue an authorization in operation after verifying the proxy element based on the data stored during the process of creating the proxy element. The issuer may update the proxy value in operation if a portion of it is used or disable it if there is no more value or the expiration date has passed. See at least col. 27, line 58 to col. 28, line 6 and FIG. 24B, step 24051 and 24032.).
While Hayes discloses credentials for a second user, Hayes does not expressly disclose generate credentials. Furthermore, Hayes does not expressly disclose the one or more actions including making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user.
However, Lee discloses generate credentials (generating a virtual card number, see at least [0117].);
the one or more actions including making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user (The financial management system may link or associate a primary account accessible by a user with a secondary account (or a sub-account) accessible by the same user or a different user. The primary account and the secondary account (or the sub-account) may provide different privileges. Merely by way of example, the user of the primary account may prescribe rules regarding who, when, how, and/or the amount of funds that may be deposited into and/or dispensed from the primary account and/or the secondary account (or the sub-account), approve or reject a transaction associated with the primary account and/or the secondary account (or the sub-account)… see at least [0051].).
From the teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hayes to generate the credentials of Hayes, using the generation technique as taught by Lee, and to modify the one or more actions of Hayes to include making a deposit of funds into the allocated user portion for use by the second user, as taught by Lee, in order to improve control of secondary account user transactions while preventing unlimited account access (see Lee at least at [0005]-[0006]), and to protect sensitive information of child account users (see Lee at least at [0007]-[0008]), and in order to improve ability of ensuring money gifted to a child is used properly (see Lee at least at [0009]-[00012]).
Claim 11 has similar limitations found in claims 3-4 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 15 has similar limitations found in claim 9 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 17 has similar limitations found in claim 2 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 20 has similar limitations found in claims 1 and 8 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Lee, and in further view of US 20240193680 A1 (“Dande”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hayes and Lee disclose the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and Hayes further discloses the graphical user interface includes the selectable option and the instructions further cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive a selection of the selectable option from the second user device; initiate a payment from the allocated user portion to a recipient account held by a recipient (FIG. 25 is an example screen shot/display 25000 that illustrates an embodiment of a user interface for using received proxy elements or proxy payment elements (PPE). The display shows the presence of two payment elements 25010 (a credit card and a debit card), two non-payment elements 25020 (a membership card and a gym pass), and proxy payment element conditions 25030, discussed above. The mobile wallet user may select the proxy element 25030 and tap the mobile device to a POS device to submit it. See at least col. 28, lines 26-34 and FIG. 25 including selectable proxy element 25030.).
Hayes does not expressly disclose receive recurring payment information associated with the recurring payment; and initiate a payment based on the recurring payment information
However, Dande discloses receive recurring payment information associated with the recurring payment (receive, from the user computing device 170 and via a user portal, a request to initiate one or more recurring payments. For instance, a user may sign up for “bill pay” which may initiate regular payments to one or more vendors, service providers, or the like (e.g., on a monthly basis, on a quarterly basis, on a predetermined schedule of dates, or the like). See at least [0083].); and
initiate a payment based on the recurring payment information (Process a second or subsequent recurring payment using the second account number instead of the first account number. See at least [0088]. See also [0026].)
From the teaching of Dande, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hayes to receive recurring payment information associated with the recurring payment and initiate a payment from the allocated user portion to a recipient account held by a recipient based on the recurring payment information, as taught by Dande, in order to improve ease and convenience of transactions including recurring payments (see Dande at least at [0002]).
Claim 12 has similar limitations found in claim 5 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Lee, and in further view of US 20230252470 A1 (“Dhodapkar”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hayes and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Hayes does not expressly disclose track transactions associated with the allocated user portion of the first account separately from other transactions associated with the first account; and transmit transaction information associated with the allocated user portion to a credit bureau computing system.
However, Dhodapkar discloses track transactions associated with the allocated user portion of the first account separately from other transactions associated with the first account (Reviewing transaction history of a secondary account. See at least [0160]. See also [0169]-[0174]. See also [0239] and FIG. 11F.); and
transmit transaction information associated with the allocated user portion to a credit bureau computing system (Sending transactions to a third-party reporting agency, for example to enable a secondary user to build a credit report with the third-party reporting agency. The described example may refer to process including a payment service system, or one or more components thereof, interacting with a third-party reporting agency, the secondary user can build their own credit score independent of primary user's financial behavior. See at least [0163]. Transmitting transaction information of the secondary user using their funds to purchase to a reporting bureau. See at least [0169]-[0174]).
From the teaching of Dhodapkar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hayes to track transactions associated with the allocated user portion of the first account separately from other transactions associated with the first account and to transmit transaction information associated with the allocated user portion to a credit bureau computing system, as taught by Dhodapkar, in order to improve facilitating payments between users and merchants (see Dhodapkar at least at [0002]), in order to improve use of computational resources (see Dhodapkar at least at [0029]), and in order to improve payment systems associated with primary and secondary accounts (see Dhodapkar at least at [0296]-[0298]), and in order to help a secondary user build credit (see Dhodapkar at least at [0162]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hayes, Lee, and Dhodapkar discloses the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Hayes does not expressly disclose when the transactions associated with the allocated user portion are tracked, the transactions are initially tracked without being associated with the second user, and the instructions further cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive a reporting request from the second user device including an indication of an identity of the second user; and associate the transaction information with the second user, wherein the transaction information is transmitted to the credit bureau computing system upon receiving the reporting request and associating the transaction information with the second user.
However, Dhodapkar discloses when the transactions associated with the allocated user portion are tracked, the transactions are initially tracked without being associated with the second user, and the instructions further cause the one or more processing circuits to: receive a reporting request from the second user device including an indication of an identity of the second user (At step 650, the payment services component 121 may send data corresponding to one or more transactions associated with credit metrics that satisfy the threshold to a third-party reporting agency 604. For example, the payment services component 121 may send transaction details corresponding to a transaction associated with a credit metric above a threshold to one or more third-party reporting agencies 604. See at least [0168]. See also [0169]-[0174].); and
associate the transaction information with the second user, wherein the transaction information is transmitted to the credit bureau computing system upon receiving the reporting request and associating the transaction information with the second user (At step 660, the third-party reporting agency 604 may receive the data corresponding to an indication of at least one transaction to associate with a user. For example, the third-party reporting agency 604 may receive further user data corresponding to the user (e.g., social security number, user identification, and other forms of identification) to identify a particular user to associate with the data corresponding to the one or more transactions. The third-party reporting agency 604 may generate a credit history for the respective user based on the at least one transaction that have been sent to the third-party reporting agency 604. See at least [0169].).
From the teaching of Dhodapkar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hayes to initially track transactions without being associated with the second user and to receive a reporting request from the second user device including an indication of an identity of the second user and to associate the transaction information with the second user, wherein the transaction information is transmitted to the credit bureau computing system upon receiving the reporting request and associating the transaction information with the second user, as taught by Dhodapkar, in order to improve facilitating payments between users and merchants (see Dhodapkar at least at [0002]), in order to improve use of computational resources (see Dhodapkar at least at [0029]), and in order to improve payment systems associated with primary and secondary accounts (see Dhodapkar at least at [0296]-[0298]), and in order to help a secondary user build credit (see Dhodapkar at least at [0162]).
Claim 13 has similar limitations found in claims 6 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 14 has similar limitations found in claims 7 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hayes and Lee disclose the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. Hayes does not expressly disclose the one or more actions comprise one or more of setting up a recurring payment from the allocated user portion, and requesting a payment card configured to draw funds from the allocated user portion.
However, Dhodapkar discloses the one or more actions comprise one or more of setting up a recurring payment from the allocated user portion, and requesting a payment card configured to draw funds from the allocated user portion (Transactions conducted by secondary accounts include recurring payments, see at least [0130]. See also [0310].).
From the teaching of Dhodapkar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the one or more actions of Hayes to comprise setting up a recurring payment from the allocated user portion, as taught by Dhodapkar, in order to improve facilitating payments between users and merchants (see Dhodapkar at least at [0002]), in order to improve use of computational resources (see Dhodapkar at least at [0029]), and in order to improve payment systems associated with primary and secondary accounts (see Dhodapkar at least at [0296]-[0298]), and in order to help a secondary user build credit (see Dhodapkar at least at [0162]).
Claim 18 has similar limitations found in claims 6 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 19 has similar limitations found in claims 7 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150379644 A1 (“Danielak”) discloses determining that the first account lacks sufficient funds to cover the payment amount, and determining that the user has pre-approved a credit line account secured by a first set of investment holdings of the user that generate revenue that is periodically transferred to the first account. The operations may also include performing a fund transfer operation for the payment amount from the credit line account to the first account.
US 20220383406 A1 (“Anasta”) discloses protecting user accounts using machine learning models. A machine learning model may be trained to determine whether account activity indicates a risk to credit scores. Account data, associated with a first financial account, may processed to determine whether the first financial account is associated with at least one underage user. A transaction request, associated with the first financial account, may be received. A history of transactions conducted by the first financial account may be retrieved. The trained machine learning model may be provided, as input, the transaction request and the history of transactions. An indication of risk to a credit score associated with the at least one underage user may be received as output from the trained machine learning model. A limitation may be added to the first financial account based on the indication of risk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694