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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Final office action is in response to applicant’s REMARKs with Claims amendments filed on 10/01/2025.
Priority Date: CON of 3-PATs(US11,908,004)-(US11,094,009)-(US10,163,155)>[04-03-2014])
Claim Status:
Amended claims:1,7, and 13
Added New Claims: 19-20
Pending claims: 1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
[1]. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[2]. Specifically, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are amended with limitations: “that are applied to selectively restrict payment for one or more goods and/or services that the mobile creditor has not approved for use with the portion of the credit line made available to the mobile creditee”, is not found in specification or original claims. Therefore, these amended elements are considered new matter.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 7 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Obtaining Credit.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 7 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim recites the limitations to:
receiving a credit request from a mobile creditee using a mobile creditee … …;
identifying a mobile creditor who has established a credit line with a financial institution and previously indicated a willingness to make a portion of the credit line available to the mobile creditee;
determining that the credit request conforms to creditor rules established by the mobile creditor; and
provide purchasing restrictions established by the mobile creditor that are applied to selectively restrict payment for one or more goods and/or services that the mobile creditor has not approved for use with the portion of the credit line made available to the mobile creditee and an associated authorization code to the mobile creditee … … to be used in making a payment to a vendor
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Obtaining Credit.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the 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 itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 1 and 13.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 are directed towards:
Using in claims (2-4; 8-10, 14-16, ), wherein the server computing device is further configured to: receive confirmation from the vendor that the payment conforms to the purchasing restrictions and includes the authorization code; wherein the server computing device is further configured to: enable the payment to take place reliant upon the credit line of the mobile creditor; wherein the server computing device is further configured to: provide the credit request to a mobile creditor computing device of the mobile creditor; and receive one or more of an approval, the creditor rules, and the purchasing restrictions from the mobile creditor computing device; and
Claims (5-6, 11-12, 17-20), wherein the mobile creditor has previously provided the creditor rules and the purchasing restrictions such that the server computing device can provide the purchasing restrictions and authorization code to the mobile creditee computing device in response to the credit request without further interaction with the mobile creditor; and wherein the server computing device is further configured to charge an account associated with the mobile credit line at the financial institution to secure the funds needed to extend the credit line to the mobile creditee prior to providing the authorization code to the mobile creditee computing device, and the funds are then transferred to the account of the mobile creditee along with the purchasing restrictions and the authorization code associated with the transferred funds.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and 13, are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Double Patenting
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title".
The following non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in the public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent. In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1964); In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); In re White, 405 F.2d 904, 160 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Van Ornam, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 985); and In re Goodman, 29 USPQ 2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,908,004, Claims 1-16 of U.S.Patent No. 11,094,009, and Claims 1-22 of U.S.Patent No.10,163,155. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite means or steps that are substantially the same and that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.78(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz et al (US 20120023011 A1) in view of Don et al (US 20130173448 A1).
Ref claim 1, Hurwitz discloses a mobile credit system comprising
a server computing device, wherein the wherein the server computing device is configured (para [0007]; via a system/method to provide…customized consumer credit from a Credit provider into purchasing facility on Internet or a mobile network…) to:
receive a credit request from a mobile creditee using a mobile creditee computing device (para [0008]; credit service system/consumer credit related data…a processor to execute credit provision requests…, wherein the consumer credit plug-in …remote credit service system…to consumers …in real time…[0029], FIG.1; via a system for the use of web browser plug-ins to provide…credit/shopping basket…);
identify a mobile creditor who has established a credit line with a financial institution and previously indicated [[ a willingness to make a portion of the credit line available to the mobile creditee]] (para [0010]; via a system is provided for online loan based purchasing: a credit service system [0014]; via purchasing from an online shopping basket…by a Credit Provider …[0034]; the website operators/plug-in…consumer credit provider… );
determine that the credit request conforms to creditor rules established by the mobile creditor (para [0032]; via the provision of credit product offerings using credit plug-in 125…regulation…regulatory systems, codes, rules or mechanisms…); and
provide purchasing restrictions established by the mobile creditor that are applied to selectively restrict payment for one or more goods and/or services that the mobile creditor has not approved for use with the portion of the credit line made available to the mobile creditee and an associated authorization code to the mobile creditee computing device to be used in making a payment to a vendor (para [0035], FIG.2, a flow diagram/browser plug-ins used to provide credit by a credit Provider for online purchasing…in use selectively by the user/not every online purchase…[0036], at stage 210 the user arrives at shopping basket/any website…supplementary consumer credit of the selected shopping basket [implied restricted payment for one or more goods/services]…shopping basket identification code…type of payment for the require purchase etc.….[0038]; via at stage 240…by the CC provider… by the credit service system…including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, mobile device payments, mobile wallet payments…)
Hurwitz does not explicitly disclose the step of a willingness to make a portion of the credit line available to the mobile creditee.
However, Don being in the same field of invention discloses the step of a willingness to make a portion of the credit line available to the mobile creditee (para [0032]; via a transaction system/transaction servers …control logic adopted to: (1) receive over a data network//cost of goods or services; (2)- securitize over a data network …against a credit line/primary credit provider; (3) fund the transaction…(4) …receive partial payment from primary credit provider; and (5) …re-securitize an outstanding balance…)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Hurwitz to include the disclosures as taught by Don to facilitate portion of credit line used.
Ref claim 2, Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 1, wherein the server computing device is further configured to: receive confirmation from the vendor that the payment conforms to the purchasing restrictions and includes the authorization code (para [0032]; via the provision of credit product offerings using credit plug-in 125…regulation…regulatory systems, codes, rules or mechanisms…).
Ref claim 3, Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 2, wherein the server computing device is further configured to:
enable the payment to take place reliant upon the credit line of the mobile creditor (para [0035], FIG.2, a flow diagram/browser plug-ins used to provide credit by a credit Provider for online purchasing…[0036], at stage 210 the user arrives at shopping basket/any website …shopping basket identification code…type of payment for the require purchase etc.….[0038]; via at stage 240…by the CC provider… by the credit service system…including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, mobile device payments, mobile wallet payments…)
Ref claim 4, Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 1, wherein the server computing device is further configured to:
provide the credit request to a mobile creditor computing device of the mobile creditor; and receive one or more of an approval, the creditor rules, and the purchasing restrictions from the mobile creditor computing device (para [0032]; via the provision of credit product offerings using credit plug-in 125…regulation…regulatory systems, codes, rules or mechanisms…).
Ref claim 5, Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 1, wherein the mobile creditor has previously provided the creditor rules and the purchasing restrictions such that the server computing device can provide the purchasing restrictions and authorization code to the mobile creditee computing device in response to the credit request without further interaction with the mobile creditor (para [0032]; via the provision of credit product offerings using credit plug-in 125…regulation…regulatory systems, codes, rules or mechanisms…).
Ref claim 6, Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 1 wherein the server computing device is further configured to charge an account associated with the mobile credit line at the financial institution to secure the funds needed to extend the credit line to the mobile creditee prior to providing the authorization code to the mobile creditee computing device (para [0035], FIG.2, a flow diagram/browser plug-ins used to provide credit by a credit Provider for online purchasing…[0036], at stage 210 the user arrives at shopping basket/any website …shopping basket identification code…type of payment for the require purchase etc.….[0038]; via at stage 240…by the CC provider… by the credit service system…including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, mobile device payments, mobile wallet payments…).
Claim 7 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-6 respectively.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 14-18 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-6 respectively.
Ref claim 19 [new], Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 6 wherein the funds are then transferred to the account of the mobile creditee along with the purchasing restrictions and the authorization code associated with the transferred funds (para [0035], FIG.2, a flow diagram/browser plug-ins used to provide credit by a credit Provider for online purchasing…[0036], at stage 210 the user arrives at shopping basket/any website …shopping basket identification code…type of payment for the require purchase etc.….[0038]; via at stage 240…by the CC provider… by the credit service system…including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, mobile device payments, mobile wallet payments…).
Ref claim 20 [new], Hurwitz discloses the mobile credit system of claim 1 wherein the server computing device is configured to perform all of the functions in claim 1 for multiple mobile creditee s and, in addition, to transfer funds to the multiple mobile creditee s along with purchasing restrictions imposed by one or more mobile creditors and the authorization code (para [0008]; credit service system/consumer credit related data…a processor to execute credit provision requests…, wherein the consumer credit plug-in …remote credit service system…to consumers …in real time…[0029], FIG.1; via a system for the use of web browser plug-ins to provide…credit/shopping basket…);
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS:
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/01/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant argues further with 101 rejection in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite” Significantly More" than abstract idea, and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two & Step-2B].
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG].
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014). Under Alice.
APPLICANT’s REMARKS:
“Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended. New claims 19 and 20 have been added. No claims have been canceled. No new matter has been added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting:
“The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-17 of USP 11,908,004, Claims 1-16 of USP 11,094,009, and Claims 1-22 of USP 10,163,155. This rejection is traversed. A terminal disclaimer is filed herewith to moot the rejection.” (Noted).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The Examiner entered a new rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. @ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
The Claims are not Abstract.
…;…;…;…;
2. Even if the Claims were Abstract, they Provide "Significantly More"
If the Examiner remains convinced that the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea, then the claims provide "significantly more" under the Alice/Mayo step 2A, prong 2 analysis. …;…;…;
Therefore, the present claims, even if directed to an abstract idea as suggested by the Examiner, overcome their direction to that abstract idea by providing significantly more and, therefore, are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
In Response to B: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from payment accounts is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:
(Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(receiving a credit request … creditee computing device; identifying a mobile creditor… the credit line available to the mobile creditee; determining …creditor rules established the by mobile creditor; and provide purchasing …mobile creditor that are applied to selectively restrict payment … not approved for use with the portion… the mobile creditee and an associated authorization code … used in making a payment to a vendor.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(receiving a credit request … creditee computing device; identifying a mobile creditor… the credit line available to the mobile creditee; determining …creditor rules established the by mobile creditor; and provide purchasing …mobile creditor that are applied to selectively restrict payment … not approved for use with the portion… the mobile creditee and an associated authorization code … used in making a payment to a vendor.)
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “receiving a credit request…; identifying a mobile creditor…; determining…;provide purchasing …selectively restrict payment…to a vendor.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0030]: compute/processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims 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 (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Moreover, In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
“The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication number 20120023011 to Hurwitz et al. ("Hurwitz") in view of U.S. Patent Publication number 20130173448 to Don et al. ("Don"). This rejection is respectfully traversed. …;…;…;
Claims may have been amended or canceled although allowable. Except as specifically admitted, no claim elements have been narrowed. Rather, cosmetic amendments were made to the claims and to broaden them in view of the cited art. The amendments are made solely for the purpose of expediting the patent application process, and the amendments were not necessary for patentability. …;…;Furthermore, no arguments in any prosecution history relate to any claim in this application, except for arguments specifically directed to the claim.”
In Response to C: Examiner Disagrees:
However, Hurwitz discloses all limitations [obviously] in views of Don, such as by Hurwitz via para [0029], FIG.1; via a system for the use of web browser plug-ins to provide…credit/shopping basket… [0010]; via a system is provided for online loan based purchasing: a credit service system [0014]; via purchasing from an online shopping basket…by a Credit Provider …[0034]; the website operators/plug-in…consumer credit provider… [0035], FIG.2, a flow diagram/browser plug-ins used to provide credit by a credit Provider for online purchasing…in use selectively by the user/not every online purchase…[0036], at stage 210 the user arrives at shopping basket/any website…supplementary consumer credit of the selected shopping basket [implied restricted payment for one or more goods/services]…shopping basket identification code…type of payment for the require purchase etc.….[0038]; via at stage 240…by the CC provider… by the credit service system…including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, mobile device payments, mobile wallet payments…); and
Don being in the same field of invention discloses the step of a willingness to make a portion of the credit line available to the mobile creditee (para [0032]; via a transaction system/transaction servers …control logic adopted to: (1) receive over a data network//cost of goods or services; (2)- securitize over a data network …against a credit line/primary credit provider; (3) fund the transaction…(4) …receive partial payment from primary credit provider; and (5) …re-securitize an outstanding balance…)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Hurwitz to include the disclosures as taught by Don to facilitate portion of credit line used.
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.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uberti et al (US 20010051924 A1) discloses On-Line Based Financial Services Method And System Utilizing Biometrically Secured Transactions For Issuing Cred
Saunders (US 8538863 B1) discloses System And Method For Facilitating A Transaction Using A Revolving Use Account Associated With A Primary Account.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691