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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on May 26, 2026.
• Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 2, 6, 10, 13, and 18 have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 11, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that the claims add 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; a provider account database; a second user device; provide a graphical user interface to the second user device, the graphical user interface including a credit report button; a credit bureau computing system 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.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20 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, wherein the allocated user portion comprises a provider-maintained sub-account record within the first account; create the allocated user portion within the first account based on the request from the user by partitioning an allocated portion of funds within the first account for use by a second user, wherein partitioning comprises maintaining separate balances for the allocated portion of funds and a non-allocated portion of funds within the first account; generate credentials for the second user, wherein the credentials are configured such that, when used by the second user, permits the second user to temporarily perform one or more actions only with respect to the allocated user portion and prevents the second user from performing actions with respect to the non-allocated portion of funds within the first account, 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; transmit the credentials to one of the first user or the second user; track transaction information associated with transactions of the allocated user portion separately from other transactions associated with the first account; receive a selection from the second user; and in response to receiving the selection from the second user: associate the transaction information with an identity of the second user; and transmit the transaction information to a credit bureau.
Claim 9 recites create, based on a request from a first user, 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, wherein the allocated user portion comprises a provider-maintained sub-account record within the first account, and partitioning comprises maintaining separate balances for the allocated portion of funds and a non-allocated portion of funds within the first account; generate credentials for the second user, wherein the credentials are configured such that, when used by the second user, permits the second user to temporarily perform one or more actions only with respect to the allocated user portion and prevents the second user from performing actions with respect to the non-allocated portion of funds within the first account, 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; 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; track transaction information associated with transactions of the allocated user portion separately from other transactions associated with the first account; receive a selection from the second user; and in response to receiving the selection from the second user: associate the transaction information with an identity of the second user; and transmit the transaction information to a credit bureau computing system.
Claim 15 recite similar limitations as claim 9.
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; a provider account database; a second user device; provide a graphical user interface to the second user device, the graphical user interface including a credit report button; a credit bureau computing system 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, 7-8, 12, 14, 16-17, 19-20 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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20 are ineligible.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights