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 Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on September 2, 2026.
• Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, and 22-30 have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 13, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed invention allows for issuing a payment instrument that has a credit limit based on balance data and adjusting the credit limit based on balance data. The Specification at paragraph [0002] describes providing dynamic adjustment of a credit limit associated with a secure payment instrument in real-time as an available balance corresponding to a user associated with a mobile payment service changes over time. The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of providing dynamic adjustment of a credit limit associated with a secure payment instrument in real-time as an available balance corresponding to a user associated with a mobile payment service changes over time, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-16, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the claims recite the additional elements of a computer-implemented method; a system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform claim functions; a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform claim functions; one or more application programming interface (API) calls; one or more mobile payment services; training a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained by using an optimization algorithm to iteratively update a set of algorithm coefficients, and wherein the machine learning algorithm is initialized using a set of random values and trained using a dataset; retraining the machine learning algorithm by iteratively updating the set of algorithm coefficients, wherein the set of algorithm coefficients is iteratively updated by processing of the updated dataset through new iterations of the machine learning algorithm to modify correlation functions subsequently generated by the retrained machine learning algorithm; processing through the retrained machine learning algorithm such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-16 where Applicant argues an improvement to technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002] describing providing dynamic adjustment of a credit limit associated with a secure payment instrument in real-time as an available balance corresponding to a user associated with a mobile payment service changes over time.
Furthermore and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-16 regarding API communication and machine learning, as an initial matter, the Examiner notes that the limitations in the claims directed to API calls are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to merely further describing the way the merely applied computer is obtaining data. Furthermore, Applicant has failed to point out how the generic recitations of a basic computer implementation/components so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, nor does Applicant direct to any indication, that the operations recited in the claims invoke any assertedly inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“After Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a computer-implemented method; a system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform claim functions; a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform claim functions; one or more application programming interface (API) calls; one or more mobile payment services; training a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained by using an optimization algorithm to iteratively update a set of algorithm coefficients, and wherein the machine learning algorithm is initialized using a set of random values and trained using a dataset; retraining the machine learning algorithm by iteratively updating the set of algorithm coefficients, wherein the set of algorithm coefficients is iteratively updated by processing of the updated dataset through new iterations of the machine learning algorithm to modify correlation functions subsequently generated by the retrained machine learning algorithm; processing through the retrained machine learning algorithm. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer merely to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 8), and an apparatus (claim 15). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in part, a method, a system, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a method, comprising: obtaining a set of account credentials associated with one or more mobile payment service accounts, wherein the one or more mobile payment service accounts are associated with one or more mobile payment services, and wherein the set of account credentials is obtained in response to receiving an application for a secured payment instrument associated with a payment instrument service; transmitting, by a balance management system of the payment instrument service, the set of account credentials to access the one or more mobile payment service accounts; receive a set of available balances associated with the one or more mobile payment service accounts; determine initial credit limits and associated correlation functions for secured payment instruments, wherein the algorithm is initialized using a set of random values and using a dataset of different secured payment instrument accounts, wherein the associated correlation functions are generated for dynamically adjusting the initial credit limits according to changes to set of available balances received; processing the set of available balances received to determine an initial credit limit and a correlation function associated with the secured payment instrument, wherein the correlation function is used to dynamically adjust the initial credit limit associated with the secured payment instrument according to changes to the set of available balances; updating the dataset according to updated spending data and credit performance data corresponding to other secured payment instrument accounts, wherein the updated spending data includes the changes to the set of available balances received and resulting credit-limit adjustments, and wherein the credit performance data includes data corresponding to hold placements and hold releases resulting from transactions associated with the other secured payment instrument accounts; iteratively updating the set of algorithm coefficients, wherein the set of algorithm coefficients is iteratively updated by processing the updated dataset to modify correlation functions for real-time credit-limit adjustments; detecting new balance data corresponding to ongoing transactions associated with the one or more mobile payment service accounts, wherein the new balance data is streamed in real time from one or more mobile payment services and indicates the changes to the set of available balances associated with the one or more mobile payment service accounts; dynamically adjusting the initial credit limit associated with the secured payment instrument based on the new balance data corresponding to the ongoing transactions associated with the one or more mobile payent service accounts and according to the correlation function generated; obtaining transaction data corresponding to use of the secured payment instrument for a transaction, wherein the transaction data indicates a transaction amount, the transaction data being obtained in real time from a transaction processing system; transmitting the transaction data to the one or more mobile payment services associated with the one or more mobile payment service accounts to cause the one or more mobile payment services to dynamically place a hold on at least one available balance of the set of available balance according to the transaction amount; processing the new balance data and the transaction data to dynamically adjust the initial credit limit and the correlation function for subsequent real time balance monitoring of the one or more mobile payment service accounts; and detecting a payment submitted by a user to reduce an existing balance associated with the secured payment instrument, wherein the payment reduces the existing balance by a payment amount; and transmitting a hold release signal to the one or more mobile payment services to cause the one or more mobile payment services to release a portion of the hold according to the payment amount.
Claims 8 and 15 have similar limitations as claim 1 above.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for issuing a payment instrument that has a credit limit based on balance data and adjusting the credit limit based on balance data, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of the method being a computer-implemented method does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a computer-implemented method; a system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform claim functions; a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform claim functions; one or more application programming interface (API) calls; one or more mobile payment services; training a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained by using an optimization algorithm to iteratively update a set of algorithm coefficients, and wherein the machine learning algorithm is initialized using a set of random values and trained using a dataset; retraining the machine learning algorithm by iteratively updating the set of algorithm coefficients, wherein the set of algorithm coefficients is iteratively updated by processing of the updated dataset through new iterations of the machine learning algorithm to modify correlation functions subsequently generated by the retrained machine learning algorithm; processing through the retrained machine learning algorithm are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function receiving an application for a payment instrument, obtaining balance data, determining a credit limit, issuing the payment instrument, updating the balance, and adjusting the credit limit) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20-21 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10019719 B2 (“Roe”) discloses authorizing a reward card transaction includes an account server configured to receive an authorization request for a transaction performed using the reward card. The system also is configured to compare the amount of the transaction to an available balance in a bank account linked to the reward card and authorize the transaction based on the comparison. The system further is configured to transmit an authorization for the transaction. A system updating a credit limit on a reward card includes an updating module configured to receive amounts of authorized reward card transactions and amounts of authorized bank account transactions. The system also is configured to update a credit limit on a reward card based on the reward card transaction amounts and/or the bank account transaction amounts.
US 20030120591 A1 (“Birkhead”) discloses facilitate responses to credit requests. According to one embodiment, information associated with a credit request is received from a customer. For example, information may be received from a customer via a customer service representative located at a telephone call center. Income information associated with the customer is then estimated. For example, a credit rating service may estimate the customer's income based on an existing mortgage loan. The estimated income is then used to provide the customer with a response to his or her request in substantially real time. For example, the customer service representative may provide the response to the customer via the telephone call.
US 20080249941 A1 (“Cooper”) discloses a user's transaction card purchases are authorized against a purchase limit associated with a consideration-bearing (e.g., interest-bearing) account. The purchases are tracked and, at the end of a billing cycle, provided to the user via a statement or other informative approach. During a payment time period after the end of the billing cycle, the user is afforded an opportunity to review tracked purchases and provide funds to cover the purchases. If the user does not provide funds for the purchases during the payment time period, funds are automatically transferred from the consideration-bearing account to cover the purchases at the end of the payment time period. In this regard, purchases made with the transaction card against the consideration-bearing account are not assessed against the consideration-bearing account until after the billing cycle has ended.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
