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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. US Pub 2017/0293909 (hereafter Song) in view of Martin US Pub 2016/0314465 (hereafter Martin).
As per claim 1, Song teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to: define a first computing operation limit specific to a first computing operation category, the first computing operation category being a computing operation of a first type in connection with a first resource account (para[0146, 0152-0156], FIG. 6B, payment limit for each category) is defined and set, first computing operation category (electronic payment) represented by Fashion (payment) category in connection with the user account, and the limit for the category is set to a certain amount).
define a pooled computing operation limit applicable to both the first computing operation category and to a second computing operation category (para[0146, 0152-0156], total payment limit (pooled operation limit) is set to a specific amount, which is applicable to all the limits for the categories including first (fashion) and second (F&B) computing operation (electronic purchases) categories));
determine that a defined amount of data associated with a requested computing operation in connection with the first computing operation category exceeds the first computing operation limit (para[0227-0232, 0255-0256], determine that the amount of requesting computing operation (electronic payment) on the first category (fashion) exceeds the set limit by 20,000);
and enable the requested computing operation (para[0251-0253, 0260-0261, 0272], after changing the payment limit for the category, the payment is within the limit, thus enable the requested payment operation).
Song does not explicitly teach determine that the defined amount of data associated with the requested computing operation is within the pooled computing operation limit.
However, Martin teaches determine that the defined amount of data associated with the requested computing operation is within the pooled computing operation limit (para[0075], when the payment exceed the first account credit limit (insufficient funding account), but the combined (first and second account) credit limit is sufficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Martin’s teaching to Song’s invention in order to provide a payment vehicle that includes a plurality of virtual budgeting accounts to which automates the process of allocating funds and assigning purchases to budge categories, and the payment vehicle combines all of the user’s financial accounts, which maximizing ease of use for the users (para[0006-0007, 0032]).
As per claim 9, Song and Martin teach the system of claim 1, and Song teaches wherein the second computing operation category is a computing operation of a second type from the first resource account (para[0045, 0146, 0152], the second computing operation category is represented by the F&B type of purchases from the same user account).
As per claim 10, Martin teaches wherein the second computing operation category is a computing operation of the first type from a second resource account (para[0074], the first category (gas) is purchase from the first funding account and the second category (groceries) is a purchase from the second funding account).
As per claim 11, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 9 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2-7, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen US Pub 2019/0311339 (hereafter Nguyen).
As per claim 2, Song and Martin teach the computer system of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach wherein a second computing operation limit specific to the second computing operation category is defined, and wherein the system is further caused to, prior to enabling the requested computing operation: reassign at least a portion of the second computing operation limit to the first computing operation limit.
However, Nguyen teaches a second computing operation limit specific to the second computing operation category is defined, and wherein the system is further caused to, prior to enabling the requested computing operation: reassign at least a portion of the second computing operation limit to the first computing operation limit (para[0193], a credit balance of the second user is supplemented by deducting the credit limit from the credit balance of the account of first user, thus reassigning the portion of the first account credit limit to the second user credit limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nguyen’s teaching to Song and Martin’s invention in order to provide a payment method and device for a plurality of users where they can conveniently share the payment amount using payment devices and perform fund transfer between users, without directly calculate payment sharing amounts (para[0011-0012]).
As per claim 3, Song, Martin and Nguyen teach the computer system of claim 2, and Song teaches wherein the computer system is further caused to: generate an updated first computing operation limit to reflect the defined amount of data associated with the requested computing operation; and generate an updated pooled computing operation limit to reflect the defined amount of data associated with the requested computing operation (para[0145-0146, 0152-0153, 0157], FIG. 6B, 7C, the screen displays monthly payment limits for each category (i.e. Fashion, 200,000) and total payment limit (representing sum of the all the limits), and these limits are updated, represented by a remaining limit amount, which reflects the requested payment amount (purchases) deducted from the limit amount).
As per claim 4, Song teaches wherein the computer system is further caused to, prior to determining that a defined amount of data associated with a requested computing operation in connection with the first computing operation category exceeds the first computing operation limit: display, via a client device, a listing of one or more resource accounts, the listing including at least the first resource account; display, via the client device, in connection with each of the one or more resource accounts, an indication of at least one computing operation limit associated with one or more computing operation types, the one or more computing operation types including the computing operation of the first type; and receive, via the client device, a request to initiate the computing operation of the first type with respect to the defined amount of data in connection with the first resource account (para[0045, 0145-0146, 0183, 0210], FIG. 6B, 7A, display the payment limit for each category for the account, and receive a request to make payment with defined amount in the first category).
As per claim 5, Song teaches wherein the computer system is further caused to: display, via the client device, the updated first computing operation limit and the updated pooled operation limit (para[0145-0148, 0214], FIG. 6B, the user device displays current payment limit for each category and the total payment limit, and when the purchase is made, the remaining limit is updated for the specific category).
As per claim 6, Song teaches wherein the pooled computing operation limit is determined, at least in part, by an aggregation of the first computing operation limit and the second computing operation limit (para[0152-0155], FIG. 6B, the total payment limit is based on the sum of the each category limits, including first and second limits).
As per claim 7, Song teaches wherein the pooled computing operation limit is further applicable to one or more additional computing operation categories, and is further determined by an additional aggregation of one or more additional computing operation limits associated with the one or more additional computing operation categories (para[0152-0155], FIG. 6B, additional operation categories and its limit can be added, including transportation and other categories).
As per claim 12, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 7 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Martin and Nguyen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen US Pub 2017/0193514 (hereafter Chen).
As per claim 8, Song, Martin and Nguyen teach the system of claim 2, and Nguyen teaches wherein reassigning at least the portion of the second computing operation limit to the first computing operation limit (para[0193], a credit balance of the second user is supplemented by deducting the credit limit from the credit balance of the account of first user, thus reassigning the portion of the first account credit limit to the second user credit limit).
Song, Martin and Nguyen do not teach includes applying a multiplier to the at least the portion of the second computing operation limit, the multiplier being based on a level of relative risk between the first computing operation category and the second computing operation category.
However, Chen teaches applying a multiplier to the at least the portion of the second category, the multiplier being based on a level of relative risk between the first category and the second category (para[004-0052], Table 5A and 5B, risk value and factor weight is determined for each category to be multiplied to get the factor weighted values, representing the relative risks between the categories, and factor weighted values are combined as category summation, thus the portions of the second category with risk factor multiplier is added with the first category with its risk factor multiplier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s teaching to Song, Martin and Nguyen’s invention in order to provide a method for detecting a suspicious transaction with a high efficiency and accuracy, where monitoring of the transaction includes assigning a risk level to the client based on the weighted score to determine whether the client involved in a suspicious transaction based on the risk level, the transaction parameter set and a pre-stored rule set (abstract, para[0007-0008]).
As per claim 18, it is a computer implemented method claim of claim 8 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanson et al. US Pub 2014/0012691 teaches methods for monitoring categorized spending limits and promoting savings are provided herein. The systems and methods, identify transactions associated with a spending category that occur during a period of time based on the transaction data, where the spending category comprises a spend limit; provide a confirmation prompt on a display of a mobile device of a user that is in communication with the system; and deduct a transaction amount for each of the transactions from the spend limit in response to receiving a confirmation from the user.
Juarez et al. US Patent 11,288,675 teaches method for improving the security of financial transactions including an account management tool where customers (or account holders) can manage financial control settings, which include controls to set limits on the frequency of financial transactions and/or maximum transaction amounts. Based on these user-selected control settings, a financial account provider can deny transactions that exceed limits determined from the financial control settings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Meng-Ai An can be reached at (571)272-3756. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights