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 response to non-final Office action on 10/24/2025 amending claims 1, 13, 17, and 19. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objection of claim 13, and the previous § 101 and § 103 rejections of claims 1-20. Examiner has, however, established new objection for claim 9; new § 101 rejection for claims 1-20; and new grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 13-18 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection and the new grounds of § 103 rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant rejection of claims 1-20 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101:
Applicant argues in pages 11-13 and 15 of Applicant’s Remarks:
A. Claims 1-20 Are Patent Eligible Under USPTO Step 2A Because They Do Not Recite a Judicial Exception and Are Integrated Into a Practical Application:
1. Claims 1-20 Are Patent Eligible Because They Do Not Fall Under Enumerated Groupings of Abstract Idea:
Applicant submits that at least these elements do not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity" or "commercial interactions" as asserted by the Office Action because they are not directed to "agreements in the forms of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sale activities or behaviors, and business relations." MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). For at least these reasons, Claims 1-20 do not fall under the enumerated grouping of an abstract idea.
2. Claims 1-20 Are Patent Eligible Because They Recite a Practical Application:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent-eligible because the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea by using a computing system that includes various components in a "meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." MPEP § 2106.04(d).
B. Claims 1-20 Are Patent Eligible Under USPTO Step 2B Because They Recite a Combination of Elements that Is Significantly More than an Abstract Idea:
Applicant respectfully submits that the instant claims do involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
A.1: Applicant’s claims recite a balance refund system where the balance of the prefunded virtual card is refunded to the account after expiration of the expiration period. This falls under the grouping certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) because in order to receive a refund, the card has been prefunded (i.e., purchased) – which is commercial interaction. As such, Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible under Step 2A – Prong 1 of the Test.
A.2: Similarly to claims in Alice, the computer is used in the instant claims as a tool to perform an existing process of refunding a balance to the account after expiration of the expiration period of the prefunded card. Applicant uses computer as a tool (instead of improves computer as a tool) while carrying out a business solution to a business problem of refunding a prefunded card. There is nothing recited in instant claims that integrates recited abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the lack of pre-emption is not a standalone test, i.e., absence of pre-emption does not imply patentable subject matter. Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under § 101 even if they do not present an issue of pre-emption. Therefore, Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible under Step 2A – Prong 2 of the Test.
B: Examiner has showed that Applicant’s claims recite well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system based on Applicant’s own specification. Further, the Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Bascom Global Internet services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Bascom”) explaining: “Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom . . . The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.” (10-11). Similarly here, the instant claims 1-20 do not use anything besides entirely conventional, generic technology of general purpose computing system. While the Federal Circuit Court in Bascom found non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, no such non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements is present with the instant claims. Thus, the instant claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under Step 2B of the Test.
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: Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments directed to the previous grounds of § 103 rejection but finds them moot in view of new grounds of § 103 rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 13.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality:
9. The balance refund system of claim 7, wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the balance refund system to:
generate, upon generating the expiration period, a third graphical user interface displaying a second message that the refund may be delayed.
transmit, to the user device, the third graphical user interface for display.
The comma (“.”) at the end of the “generate” step should be replaced with semi-colon (“;”) followed by the word “and.” Applicant could amend claim 9 to recite:
9. The balance refund system of claim 7, wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the balance refund system to:
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 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 system for balance refunds. The creation of system for balance refunds, 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” (claims 1 and 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 by identifying whether any pending transactions associated with the prefunded virtual card have not been debited from the balance” (claims 1 and 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 1 and 19);
“responsive to determining that the prefunded virtual card is associated with unposted transactions: iteratively determine whether all of the unposted transactions have posted by identifying in real-time whether all pending transactions associated with the prefunded virtual card have been debited from the balance until the expiration period has expired or all the unposted transactions have posted” (claims 1 and 19);
“upon determining that all of the unposted transactions have posted during the expiration period: following settlement of a final pending transaction associated with the prefunded virtual card, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account before expiration of the expiration period” (claims 1 and 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 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 by identifying in real-time whether a funding automated clearing house (ACH) transfer has settled” (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);
“generate a first graphical user interface displaying the status information, and that the prefunded virtual card has expired and has the balance” (claim 19);
“generate a second graphical user interface displaying a first message that the prefunded virtual card is being refunded” (claim 19);
“following settlement of a final pending transaction associated with the prefunded virtual card, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual card to the account before expiration of the expiration period” (claim 19); and
“generate a third graphical user interface displaying the first message that the prefunded virtual card is being refunded” (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);
“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).”); and
upon the clearing of the initial transfer, refund the balance of the prefunded virtual 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;
determining whether an initial transfer has cleared by identifying in real-time whether a funding automated clearing house (ACH) transfer has settled;
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 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.
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); and transmitting the second graphical user interface to the user device for display (Yates: pages 15-16, ¶ 116).
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:
determining whether an initial transfer has cleared by identifying in real-time whether a funding automated clearing house (ACH) transfer has settled (Li: page 4 – see below); and
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, agreb the refund request of the user to be refund, 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 determining whether an initial transfer has cleared by identifying in real-time whether a funding automated clearing house (ACH) transfer has settled; and 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.
Goodsitt (US 2025/0156842 A1) discloses: “[0168] Two days later, Sarah goes to the office supply store and spends $150 using the prefunded virtual card from her smartphone. The mobile application shows her in real-time her spending habits. David also gets a notification of an office supply store charge on Sarah's prefunded virtual card for $150. Sarah uses the card several other times. At the end of the 7 days, the prefunded virtual card expires with $200 left on the balance. The prefunded virtual card balance is refunded to David's credit card account.
Shuster (US 2011/0238577 A1) discloses: “A computer receives information about a debit account controlled by a third-party issuer, a user owing the account and instructions for managing the account after a specified trigger date. Operating according the instructions, an unknown remaining balance in the account may be exhausted after the trigger date has passed, using a sequence of charges responsive to the initial balance, to the last charge amount completed or attempted, and to whether or not the last charge amount is accepted.”
Forrero (US 2009/0254484 A1) discloses: “[0068] FIG. 6 is a flow chart that shows illustrating the steps taken in making a purchase over the World Wide Web or Retailers using an Anon Virtual Prepaid Internet Shopping Card in accordance with the present invention.”
Keitel, Philip Lehman. "Federal Regulation of the Prepaid Card Industry: Costs, Benefits, and Changing Industry Dynamics." FRB of Philadelphia-Payment Cards Center Discussion Paper 11-03 (2011).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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). 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights