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
This final office action is prepared in response to amendments and arguments filed by Applicant on May 4, 2026 as a reply to the non-final office action mailed on February 5, 2026.
Claims 7 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments filed on May 4, 2026 have been carefully considered but deemed unpersuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth below, necessitated by Applicant’s substantial amendments to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof, and will require further search and consideration.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhodapkar (U.S. 2023/0252470) in view of Mukherjee (US 2012/0259768)
Regarding claim 1, Dhodapkar disclosed a method comprising:
receiving, from a computing device associated with a first user, an electronic request to delegate an electronic access right of an account of a user profile of the first user to a second user, the electronic request including an identifier of the second user (Dhodapkar, Fig. 2B, step 231 and [0115], “the first user device 112(B) may generate a notification to present to the first user and to request the first user to identify a second user to request to authorize a secondary account. The first user may input an identifier to request a second user to authorize a secondary account”) and
an access level, duration, and amount limit for a bill pay service of the first user (Dhpdapkar, [0037], “… conditions that can be used to control or otherwise regulate spending of the secondary users … (include) a transaction amount, a transaction type (e.g., peer-to-peer, purchasing stock or cryptocurrency, point-of-sale, etc.), item(s) associated with the transaction, a geolocation, a time, a particular merchant, a merchant category code, a particular recipient” said conditions define the access level);
querying, using a processing unit, a database using the identifier of the second user (Dhodapkar, [0117], “The onboarding component 117 may query a datastore to determine whether there is an account associated with the identifier.”),
the database including full user profiles and limited purpose user profiles, wherein limited purpose user profiles have a subset of functionality of the full user profiles (Dhodapkar, Fig. 17 and [0317] disclosed that the datastore can store user accounts 1704 and other user accounts of the user accounts 1704);
determining, using the processing unit, that the identifier of the second user is not present in the database based on a result of the querying (Dhodapkar, [0119], “ if the identifier is not linked to a primary account…”); and
as a result of the determining:
generating, using the processing unit, a limited purpose user profile in the database for the second user (Dhodapkar, Fig. 2B, step 234 and [0126], “the second user device 112(A) may identify payment functionalities to enable for the secondary account”);
generating, using the processing unit, an online access account for the limited purpose user profile (Dhodapkar, Fig. 2C, step 229 and [0128], “create the secondary account with the selected payment functionalities enabled”); and
establishing a digital link, using the processing unit, between the limited purpose user profile and the account of the first user in the database, the digital link identifying the electronic access right from the electronic request (Dhodapkar, [0128], “the account configuration component 119 may generate a mapping, or other association, between the primary account of the second user and the secondary account of the first user and store the mapping, or other association, in a datastore of the payment service system 106”) granting the online access account access to the bill pay service of the first user for the access level, duration and amount limit (Dhodapkar, [0037], “[0037], “… conditions that can be used to control or otherwise regulate spending of the secondary users … (include) a transaction amount, a transaction type … a geolocation, a time, a particular merchant …)
Examiner’s Note: Dhodapkar disclosed in [0050] that “a primary user and a secondary user may initiate an onboarding flow via the same step(s) and, based on a determination that a user does not satisfy one or more requirement(s) or condition(s) (e.g., age, legal status, geographic location, etc.), the onboarding component 117 can modify the onboarding flow for onboarding the secondary user.” Dhodapkar further disclosed in [0053] that “the onboarding flow can be triggered by the primary user 114(A) or the secondary user 114(B). That is, either a primary user or a secondary user can initiate the process of creating a secondary account. When the primary user 114(A) initiates the request to create the secondary account, the secondary user 114(B) may receive an electronic invitation (e.g., short message service or “SMS” text message, email, or push notification to an instance of the payment service app executing on their user device) to create the secondary account by providing information for association with the secondary account.” Dhodapkar’s disclosure means that the “request to identify a second user” in Fig. 2B, step 225 could be initiated by the user 112(A).
Dhodapkar might not have explicitly disclosed
wherein the access level comprises one of a view level access, an edit level access, or a full level access to the bill pay service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mukherjee disclosed a system and method for providing proxy account (Mukherjee, Abstract) where the proxy accounts are given various levels of access rights (Mukherjee, [0013]). In particular, Mukherjee disclosed
wherein the access level comprises one of a view level access, an edit level access, or a full level access to the bill pay service (Mukherjee, [0035], “With respect to the access rights, the master account owner may allow an owner of the proxy account to have access rights to view information on the master account funding instruments, to change, delete, or add funding instruments to the proxy account, or to view transaction history associated with the master account or the proxy account”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Dhodapkar and Mukherjee before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because both references disclosed systems and methods that allows a primary account owner to create a secondary/proxy account to delegate access to the account to a proxy (Dhodapkar, Abstract; Mukherjee, Abstract). Therefore, it would have also been obvious for one to use Dhodapkar’s invention in light of Mukherjee’s teaching so that the secondary account may have different levels of access rights including viewing the account history, changing the account, or both because with the ability to assign different levels of access rights the account owner would have better use and control over the proxy.
Claim 9 lists substantially the same elements as claim 1, in computer readable medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the rejection rationale for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 17 lists substantially the same elements as claim 1, in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rejection rationale for claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Dhodapkar and Mukherjee disclosed the subject matter of claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively.
Dhodapkar further disclosed
transmitting a request to a computing device associated with the second user to accept delegation of the electronic request of the account of the user profile of the first user (Dhodapkar, [0117], “the onboarding component 117 may proceed to prepare and send a request to a second user device 112(A) associated with the primary account”) and
receiving from the computing device associated with the second user, an indication of acceptance of the delegation (Dhodapkar, [0127], “the approval to create the secondary account with the payment functionalities is received”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Dhodapkar and Mukherjee disclosed the subject matter of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Dhodapkar further disclosed
wherein the limited purpose user profile is not associated with an account of the second user (this contradicts the limitation in the independent claims because “generating, using the processing unit, a limited purpose user profile in the database for the second user” and “generating, using the processing unit, an online access account for the limited purpose user profile” implies that the limited purpose user profile is associated with an account of the second user).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Dhodapkar and Mukherjee disclosed the subject matter of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Dhodapkar further disclosed
wherein establishing the digital link, using the processing unit, between the limited purpose user profile and the account of the first user in the database comprises: associating the online access account and the account of the first user in the database (Dhodapkar, [0128], “the account configuration component 119 may generate a mapping, or other association, between the primary account of the second user and the secondary account of the first user and store the mapping, or other association, in a datastore of the payment service system 106”).
Claims 3-5, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhodapkar and Mukherjee as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, further in view of Lopez (US 2024/0015158).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Dhodapkar and Mukherjee disclosed the subject matter of claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively.
Dhodapkar might not have explicitly disclosed but Lopez disclosed
receiving a login request associated with the limited purpose user profile (Lopez, Fig. 3B disclosed an identity verification prompt that ask the use to enter a passcode); and
in response to the login request, presenting a user interface with account controls for the account of the user profile of the first user based on the electronic access right (Lopez, Fig. 2, step 212 and [0045], “upon identity verification, the guest access system 114 may issue a token and the account session may be activated to provide the guest contact account access through the second application 122”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Dhodapkar and Lopez because both references disclosed methods for granting limited account access to a second user, e.g. “second user” in Dhodapkar and “guest contact” in Lopez. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Dhodapkar and Lopez to know that the second user in Dhodapkar may be asked to sign into the secondary account first before said second user is able to use its limited access to the primary account.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Dhodapkar, Mukherjee and Lopez disclosed the subject matter of claims 3, 11 and 19, respectively.
Dhodapkar and Lopez further disclosed
wherein the account of the first user is identified as a funding source for a bill payment account (Dhodapkar, [0158] and Fig. 10A-10F disclosed that “the secondary user 114(B) requests approval from a primary user 114(A) to use the requested functionality. For example, the account configuration component 119 communicates with the payment service app 110(B) to display the approval request workflow (e.g., FIGS. 10D-10F) so that the secondary user 114(B) can request approval” said disclosure made it clear that the primary user 114(a) is the funding source; Lopez, [0002], “a bank account owner may be ill and desire for a family member to transfer money from the bank account to pay a credit card balance on their behalf”).
The rationale for combining Dhodapkar and Lopez is the same as that provided in the rejection rationale for claims 3, 11 and 19 above.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Dhodapkar, Mukherjee and Lopez disclosed the subject matter of claims 4 and 12, respectively.
Dhodapkar further disclosed
wherein the electronic access right grants the second user a right to initiate a payment to the bill payment account from the account of the first user using the account controls (Dhodapkar, Fig. 5 and Figs. 10A-10F).
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 extension fee 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 SHIRLEY X ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5012. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/SHIRLEY X ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights