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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a request for continued examination (RCE) on 05/04/2026 amending claims 1, 9, 13, and 19. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objection of claim 9, and the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-20. Examiner has, however, established new § 101 rejection for claims 1-20; and maintained the previous grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 13-18 in the instant Office action.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101:
Applicant argues in page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant respectfully submits that the Claims are . . . directed toward a system that dynamically updates graphical user interfaces in response to real-time backend events - specifically, the posting of transactions during an expiration period - rather than merely using a computer as a tool to perform a commercial interaction, as alleged in the Office Action. See Office Action at pp. 12. Therefore, the claimed technology constitutes a practical application because it is a clear advancement and improvement in technology over prior systems as reflected in the Specification and Claims. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
. . .
Furthermore, the USPTO has issued examples of claims examined under 35 U.S.C. § 101 that are instructive here. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Example 42 - Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated. Example 42, Claim 1, specifically provides an example of a claim that successfully recites a practical application despite being directed to a method of organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
As before, Applicant’s claims are recited in high level of abstraction lacking details and specifics as to how a technological solution to a problem of technology is carried out. Applicant’s newly amended feature of “dynamically updating” information in the graphical user interface does not change this as it is also recited in high level of abstraction. Further, instant claims are not patent eligible in view of Example 42. In Example 42: “the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user” (see the explanation of Example 42: Step 2A – Prong 2). Instant claims 1-20 recite nothing regarding allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Therefore, Applicant’s claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under § 101.
Prior Art under § 102/§ 103:
As to claims 1-12 and 19-20: The closest cited prior art reference – Ryoo (KR 20150010721 A) – discloses device and method for refunding card balance. Ryoo, however, does not – either alone or in combination with other references – disclose all the claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 19 as an ordered combination of steps.
As to claims 13-18:
Applicant argues in pages 13:
[W]hile Yates discloses transmitting "a push update to an application running on an enrolled payment cardholder device, the push update adapted and configured to change a rewards balance displayed through the application," see Yates at [0103], this is not the same as "dynamically update the first graphical user interface by switching a displayed refund status based on whether the initial transfer has cleared," as recited in amended Claim 13 (emphasis added). Yates discloses updating a rewards balance in response to earning or spending rewards - not dynamically switching a refund status based on whether an initial funding ACH transfer has cleared.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim 13 element at issue recites:
dynamically updating the first graphical user interface by switching a displayed refund status based on whether the initial transfer has cleared;
Yates (US 2023/0092175 A1) discloses:
[0079] The incentive management system 106 also communicates the earned rewards to the enrolled customer device 118 to cause an application running thereon to reflect the updated account balance. The communication causes the application to update account balances associated with the virtual payment card held within the customer device’s 118 virtual wallet 144. This interaction can take the form a push notification sent by the incentive management system 106 to the enrolled payment cardholder device 118 such that an application handles the push notification and updates the account balance visible within the application/virtual wallet 144.
Yates, thus, teaches that the application updates the account balance based on push notification, where push notification causes a dynamic update, and the update is visible within the application. Therefore, Yates teaches the claim element at issue.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, 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. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-20 is a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-20, however, recite an abstract idea of refunding prefunded virtual cards. The creation of refunding prefunded virtual cards, as recited in the independent claims 1, 13, and 19, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 13, and 19, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“determine, from the status information, that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has a balance” (claim 1);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has the balance, determine whether the prefunded virtual card is associated with unposted transactions” (claim 1);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card is not associated with unposted transactions, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to an account” (claim 1);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card is associated with unposted transactions, iteratively determine whether all of the unposted transactions have posted until the expiration period has expired or all the unposted transactions have posted” (claim 1);
“upon determining that all of the unposted transactions have posted during the expiration period, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account before expiration of the expiration period” (claim 1);
“upon determining the expiration period has expired, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account after expiration of the expiration period” (claim 1);
“generate a graphical user interface displaying a visual indicator and a description of a refund status of the prefunded virtual card, wherein the visual indicator and the description change based on the expiration period” (claim 1);
“dynamically update the graphical user interface in response to transactions posting during the expiration period by switching the refund status based on whether all pending transactions associated with the prefunded virtual card have posted before the expiration period has expired” (claim 1);
“determine, from the status information and the cancelation request, that the prefunded virtual card has been cancelled and has a balance” (claim 13);
“generate a first graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is cancelled and indicating the balance is being refunded to an account” (claim 13);
“determine whether an initial transfer has cleared” (claim 13);
“responsive to determining that the initial transfer has cleared, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account” (claim 13);
“responsive to determining that the initial transfer has not cleared, generate a second graphical user interface displaying a second message that the refund may be delayed” (claim 13);
“upon the clearing of the initial transfer, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account” (claim 13);
“dynamically update the first graphical user interface by switching a displayed refund status based on whether the initial transfer has cleared” (claim 13);
“determine, from the status information, that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has a balance” (claim 19);
“generate a first graphical user interface displaying the status information, and that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has the balance” (claim 19);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has the balance, determine whether the prefunded virtual card is associated with unposted transactions” (claim 19);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card is not associated with unposted transactions, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to an account” (claims 19);
“generate a second graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is being refunded” (claim 19);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card is associated with unposted transactions, iteratively determine whether all of the unposted transactions have posted until the expiration period has expired or all the unposted transactions have posted” (claim 19);
“upon determining that all of the unposted transactions have posted during the expiration period, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account before expiration of the expiration period” (claim 19);
“upon determining the expiration period has expired, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account after expiration of the expiration period” (claim 19);
“generate a third graphical user interface displaying the first message that the prefunded virtual card is being refunded” (claim 19); and
“dynamically update the third graphical user interface in response to transactions posting during the expiration period by switching a displayed refund status based on whether all pending transactions have posted before the expiration period has expired” (claim 19).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1, 13, and 19, recite additional elements:
“one or more processors” (claims 1, 13, and 19); and
“memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions” (claims 1, 13, and 19).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“receive status information regarding a prefunded virtual card” (claims 1, 13, and 19);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card is associated with unposted transactions, retrieve an expiration period starting from an expiration date of the prefunded virtual card” (claims 1 and 19);
“transmit the graphical user interface to a user device for display” (claim 1);
“receive a cancellation request associated with the prefunded virtual card” (claim 13);
“transmit the first graphical user interface to a user device for display” (claims 13 and 19);
“transmit the second graphical user interface to the user device for display” (claims 13 and 19); and
“transmit the third graphical user interface to a user device for display” (claim 19).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements /limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 19, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test:
The additional elements of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[0063]The processor 310 may include one or more of a microprocessor, microcontroller, digital signal processor, co-processor or the like or combinations thereof capable of executing stored instructions and operating upon stored data. The memory 330 may include, in some implementations, one or more suitable types of memory (e.g. such as volatile or non-volatile memory, random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), magnetic disks, optical disks, floppy disks, hard disks, removable cartridges, flash memory, a redundant array of independent disks (RAID), and the like), for storing files including an operating system, application programs (including, for example, a web browser application, a widget or gadget engine, and or other applications, as necessary), executable instructions and data. In one embodiment, the processing techniques described herein may be implemented as a combination of executable instructions and data stored within the memory 330.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “transmitting,” “receiving,” and “retrieving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “transmitting,” “receiving,” and “retrieving” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional elements of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, receive or transmit data over a network in a merely generic manner. Further, similarly to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the additional elements of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, store and retrieve information in memory. The courts have recognized “transmitting,” “receiving,” and “retrieving” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/ limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 19, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2-12 depend on independent claim 1; dependent claims 14-18 depend on independent claim 13; and dependent claim 20 depends on independent claim 19. The elements in dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the prefunded virtual card is created when funds are debited from the account” (claim 2: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the funds for the prefunded virtual card are debited from the account using an automated clearing house transfer” (claim 3: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the balance of the prefunded virtual card is refunded to the account associated with prefunding the prefunded virtual card” (claim 4: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“refunding the balance to the account, refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account before expiration of the expiration period, or refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account after expiration of the expiration period further comprises: verifying that a prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account; and responsive to verifying that the prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account: sending the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account” (claim 5: “verifying” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “sending” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the balance of the prefunded virtual card is sent to the account using an automated clearing house transfer” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“generate a first graphical user interface displaying the status information, and that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has the balance; and transmit, to a user device, the first graphical user interface for display” (claim 7: “generating” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “transmitting” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
"”generate, upon the refund of the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account, a second graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is being refunded; and transmit, to the user device, the second graphical user interface for display” (claim 8: “generating” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “transmitting” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“generate, upon generating the expiration period, a third graphical user interface displaying a second message that the refund may be delayed; and transmit, to the user device, the third graphical user interface for display” (claim 9: “generating” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “transmitting” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the second message displays an estimated time for the refund based on a length of the expiration period” (claim 10: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"expiration period varies based on the status information of the prefunded virtual card" (claim 11: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the expiration period is 21 days” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the balance of the prefunded virtual card is refunded to the account associated with prefunding the prefunded virtual card” (claim 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“refunding the balance to the account further comprises: verifying that a prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account; and responsive to verifying that the prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account: sending the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account” (claim 15: “verifying” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “sending” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the balance of the prefunded virtual card is sent to the account using an automated clearing house transfer” (claim 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the second message further comprises an estimated time for the refund” (claim 17: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“generate, upon the refund of the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account, a third graphical user interface displaying a status identifier of the prefunded virtual card as refunded; and transmit, to the user device, the third graphical user interface for display” (claim 18: “generating” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “transmitting” step is insignificant extra solution activity); and
“refunding the balance to the account, refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account before expiration of the expiration period, or refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account after expiration of the expiration period further comprises: verifying that a prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account; and responsive to verifying that the prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account: sending the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account” (claim 20: “verifying” step is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “sending” step is insignificant extra solution activity).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
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 § 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 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo (KR 20150010721 A) in view of Yates (US 2023/0092175 A1), and further in view of Li (CN 115809882 A).
As to independent claim 13
Ryoo shows:
one or more processors, and memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions (Ryoo: page 4 – disclosing: “Embodiments according to the present invention may be implemented in the form of program instructions that can be executed through various computer means and recorded in a computer-readable medium. The computer-readable medium may include program instructions, data files, data structures, and the like, alone or in combination.”);
receive status information regarding a prefunded card (Ryoo: page 4 – disclosing: “[T]he user according to one side of the present invention can query the balance that can be refunded.”);
receive a cancellation request associated with the prefunded card (Ryoo: page 3 – disclosing: “[T]he card balance refund device according to one aspect of the present invention in the automatic refund settlement process with a matched refund means, credit card charge or cancellation refund to the card number.”);
determine, from the status information and the cancelation request, that the prefunded card has been cancelled and has a balance (Ryoo: page 4 – disclosing: “The card balance refund apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention calculates a refund balance of the credit card when a preset refund period arrives after the card transaction suspension period (750).”);
determine whether an initial transfer has cleared (Ryoo: page 4 – disclosing: “The card balance refund apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention calculates a refund balance of the credit card when a preset refund period arrives after the card transaction suspension period (750). … The card balance refund apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention processes the refund balance with the registered refund means (760).”); and
upon the clearing of the initial transfer, refund the balance of the prefunded card to the account (Ryoo: page 4 – disclosing: “The card balance refund apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention processes the refund balance with the registered refund means (760).”);
Ryoo does not show:
a card being a virtual card;
generating a first graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is cancelled and indicating the balance is being refunded to an account;
transmitting the first graphical user interface to a user device for display;
responsive to determining that the initial transfer has cleared, refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account;
responsive to determining that the initial transfer has not cleared, generating a second;
transmitting the second graphical user interface to the user device for display; and
dynamically updating the first graphical user interface by switching a displayed refund status based on whether the initial transfer has cleared (***).
Yates shows:
a card being a virtual card (Yates: page 14, ¶ 110);
generating a first graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is cancelled and indicating the balance is being refunded to an account (Yates: pages 15-16, ¶ 116);
transmitting the first graphical user interface to a user device for display (Yates: pages 15-16, ¶ 116);
responsive to determining that the initial transfer has not cleared, generating a second graphical user interface displaying a second message that the refund may be delayed (Yates: pages 15-16, ¶ 116);
transmitting the second graphical user interface to the user device for display (Yates: pages 15-16, ¶ 116); and
dynamically updating the first graphical user interface by switching a displayed refund status based on whether the initial transfer has cleared (Yates: page 9, ¶ 79).
Motivation to combine Ryoo and Yates:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ryoo by a card being a virtual card; generating a first graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is cancelled and indicating the balance is being refunded to the account; transmitting the first graphical user interface to a user device for display; transmitting the first graphical user interface to a user device for display; responsive to determining that the initial transfer has not cleared, generating a second graphical user interface displaying a second message that the refund may be delayed; and transmitting the second graphical user interface to the user device for display of Yates in order to incentivizing repeat transactions (Yates: page 3, ¶ 33).
Li shows:
responsive to determining that the initial transfer has cleared, refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account (Li: page 4 – disclosing: [O]btaining the transaction data of the user to be cleared, summarizing the forward transaction and the negative transaction, so as to finish the clearing and rolling difference of the user to be cleared, and summarizing according to the transaction date, the generated amount to be settled can directly reflect the number of the net income of the user to be cleared through the positive and negative transaction of each day, whether the net income is positive. so as to when the refund user sends the refund request, according to the to-be-cleared balance of the user to be cleared, processing the refund request. relative to directly according to the transaction to be refund user before the transaction normal payment, to judge whether it can return the payment amount. Adopting the solution, according to the total transaction data for refund judgment, can prevent the user to be clearing the user under the condition of insufficient balance . . . so as to reduce the transaction risk.”).
Motivation to combine Ryoo and Li:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ryoo by responsive to determining that the initial transfer has cleared: refunding the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account of Li in order to reduce the transaction risk (Li: page 4).
As to claim 14: Ryoo in view of Yates, and further in view of Li, shows all the elements of claim 13. Ryoo also shows that the balance of the prefunded virtual card is refunded to the account associated with prefunding the prefunded virtual card (Ryoo: page 3 – disclosing: “[A] user purchases the credit card by credit card, debit card, or check card, or purchases the credit card in cash to obtain a card number, bank account, reward point account, email account, etc. for automatic refund . . . Card balance refund device according to one aspect of the present invention can match the user information to be refunded and the credit card to be credited to the user.”).
As to claim 15: Ryoo in view of Yates, and further in view of Li, shows all the elements of claim 13. Ryoo also shows refunding the balance to the account further comprises: verifying that a prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account; and responsive to verifying that the prefunding source for the prefunded virtual card was the account: sending the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account (Ryoo: page 3 – disclosing: “Card balance refund device according to one aspect of the present invention can match the user information to be refunded and the credit card to be credited to the user.”).
As to claim 18: Ryoo in view of Yates, and further in view of Li, shows all the elements of claim 13. Ryoo does not show generating, upon the refund of the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account, a third graphical user interface displaying a status identifier of the prefunded virtual card as refunded; and transmitting, to the user device, the third graphical user interface for display. Yates shows generating, upon the refund of the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account, a third graphical user interface displaying a status identifier of the prefunded virtual card as refunded; and transmitting, to the user device, the third graphical user interface for display (Yates: pages 15-16, ¶ 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ryoo by generating, upon the refund of the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account, a third graphical user interface displaying a status identifier of the prefunded virtual card as refunded; and transmitting, to the user device, the third graphical user interface for display of Yates in order to incentivizing repeat transactions (Yates: page 3, ¶ 33).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo in view of Yates, further in view of Li, and further in view of Bixler (WO 2009/002767 A1).
As to claim 16, Ryoo in view of Yates, and further in view of Li, shows all the elements of claim 15. Ryoo does not show that the balance of the prefunded virtual card is sent to the account using an automated clearing house transfer. Bixler shows that the balance of the prefunded virtual card is sent to the account using an automated clearing house transfer (Bixler: page 9, ¶ 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ryoo by the balance of the prefunded virtual card being sent to the account using an automated clearing house transfer of Bixler in order to provide financial transfer service (Bixler: page 1, ¶ 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo in view of Yates, further in view of Li, and further in view of Chun (AU 2012101049 A4).
As to claim 17, Ryoo in view of Yates, and further in view of Li, shows all the elements of claim 13. Ryoo does not show that the second message further comprises an estimated time for the refund. Chun shows that the second message further comprises an estimated time for the refund (Chun: page 3, lines 22-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ryoo by the second message further comprising an estimated time for the refund of Chun in order to boost customer satisfaction (Chun: page 4, line 36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen, Ari. "Protecting the Undeserved: Extending the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E to Prepaid Debit Cards." Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law 5.1 (2010): 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
