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 office action is prepared in response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on December 17, 2025.
Claims 7 and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments filed on December 17, 2025 have been carefully considered. However, the amendments and arguments failed to place the application in condition for allowance in view of the new ground of rejection as set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 17, 2025 is compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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).
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).
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 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 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 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 (U.S. 2023/0252470) in view of Lopez (US 2024/0015158).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Lopez 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 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 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
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