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 October 19, 2025.
• Claims 1-4 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claim 5 has been canceled.
• Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 5-6, 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 generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a system comprising: a server apparatus and a store terminal, wherein the server apparatus is configured to execute claim functions such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, 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 server, a memory storing a computer program executable to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The server, 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 [0011]-[0012], describing that in a case where a child performs payment processing using a payment account of the parent, that it is preferable to limit the purchase of the product at the time of payment for example if the product or service is deemed inappropriate for the child to purchase.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 7-8, that Perez does not identify each second user who utilizes the transaction account for payment, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. Perez teaches the limitation of determining based on the user ID of the second user whether utilization authority for payment means linked with the payment account is given to the second user by the first user, at least at [0065], stating that the querying module of the processing server may execute a query on the linked database to identify a linked profile associated with the transaction message and the linked profile may be identified based on the inclusion of the primary account number stored in the corresponding data element included in the received transaction message. And Perez teaches primary and secondary users at least at [0046]. The cited art of record therefore teaches this limitation.
Applicant further argues, on page 8, that the claimed invention allows for a first user able to set individual purchase restriction conditions for the second user by identifying the user rather than the transaction account, and that this is not taught by Perez. The argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “setting individual restriction conditions,” “identifying the user rather than the transaction account”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10, that Hokazono does not prevent customers from purchasing food containing allergens, and that Hokazono does not teach the limitations of claim 4, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. The Examiner notes that Perez is relied upon for teaching preventing customers from purchasing a product based on transaction rules, and Perez teaches this limitation at least at [0066], describing that if that the transaction controls indicate denial of the payment transaction based on the transaction data, then the transmitting device of the processing server may electronically transmit an authorization response to the payment network indicating denial of the payment transaction, and at least at [0042], describing transaction controls including controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data. And, Hokazono teaches storing, acquiring, and determining allergenic information at least at [0054]-[0058], describing identifying allergen information, and at least at [0122], describing a receipt printing a message indicating the product is forbidden from consumption due to the allergen being an active ingredient.
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 10 that Hokazono is not related to payment transactions, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Perez with the teaching of Hokazono in order to improve customer experience associated with improving warning customers that order items with a restricted food ingredient (see Hokazono at least at [0003]-[0005]), and to ease burden of customers and improve quality of life of customers (see Hokazono at least at [0046], [0058]-[0059], and [0214]).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 is directed to a system. Therefore, on its face, independent claim 1 is 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), claim 1 recites, in part, a system of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites acquiring a payment account linked with a first user, a user ID of a second user different from the first user, and first product information including product information of a first product, determining based on the user ID of the second user, whether utilization authority for payment means linked with the payment account is given to the second user by the first user, in response to determining that the utilization authority for the payment means is given to the second user, determining, based on the user ID of the second user and the first product information, whether the first product belongs to a first product category that is a product category including a product to which the first user has decided to not permit purchase by the second user; and in response to determining that the first product belongs to the first product category, transmitting a signal indicating that payment processing for the first product utilizing the payment means is not permitted to a first store where the second user is about to purchase the first product, and in response to receiving the signal indicating that the payment processing for the first product utilizing the payment means is not permitted, not execute the payment processing. 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 denying a transaction if a user if not permitted to transact based on the detected conditions, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a controller and a store terminal do 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 system comprising: a server apparatus and a store terminal, wherein the server apparatus is configured to execute claim functions are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of acquiring payment information, determining whether to approve or deny payment based on payment information, and transmit a signal of a denial to based on product category of the payment transaction) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 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 2-4 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, claims 1-4 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180240094 A1 (“Perez”).
Regarding claim 1, a first embodiment of Perez discloses a system comprising: a server apparatus and a store terminal, wherein the server apparatus is configured to execute (see at least [0137]-[0138], and see also [0127]-[0138].):
acquiring a payment account linked with a first user, a user ID (Receiving a transaction message which may include a primary account number, see at least [0064].),
and first product information including product information of a first product (Transaction message may include product data. See at least [0051].),
determining based on the user ID of the second user whether utilization authority for payment means linked with the payment account is given to the second user by the first user (The querying module of the processing server may execute a query on the linked database to identify a linked profile associated with the transaction message. The linked profile may be identified based on the inclusion of the primary account number stored in the corresponding data element included in the received transaction message. See at least [0065].);
in response to determining that the utilization authority for the payment means is given to the second user, determining based on the user ID of the second user and the first product information whether the first product belongs to a first product category that is a product category including a product to which the first user has decided not to permit purchase by the second user (The transaction processing module of the processing server may begin processing of the transaction by determining if the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls. The determination may be based on criteria set forth in the identified linked profile. If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then, the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. See at least [0065]-[0066]. Transaction controls may include, for instance, controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data, or a combination thereof. Funding rules may be used to provide for desire levels of contribution to purchases as may be agreed upon by the users of the linked transaction account. For example, extended family may want to assist an undergraduate student with their purchases when they are away at school. See at least [0042]-[0043].), and
in response to determining that the first product belongs to the first product category, transmitting a signal indicating that payment processing for the first product utilizing the payment means is not permitted to the store terminal of a first store where the second user is about to purchase the first product (If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. If the transaction controls are not satisfied, such that the transaction controls indicate denial of the payment transaction based on the transaction data, then the transmitting device of the processing server may electronically transmit an authorization response to the payment network indicating denial of the payment transaction. See at least [0066]. Transaction controls may include, for instance, controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data, or a combination thereof. See at least [0042]. Transaction at a point of sale device at a merchant, see at least [0111].), and
the store terminal is configured to, in response to receiving the signal indicating that the payment processing for the first product utilizing the payment means is not permitted, not execute the payment processing (If the transaction controls are not satisfied, such that the transaction controls indicate denial of the payment transaction based on the transaction data, then the transmitting device of the processing server may electronically transmit an authorization response to the payment network indicating denial of the payment transaction. See at least [0066].).
While the first embodiment of Perez discloses a user ID, the first embodiment of Perez does not expressly disclose a user ID of a second user different from the first user.
However, a second embodiment of Perez discloses a user ID of a second user different from the first user (Receiving a transaction message which may include a primary account number, see at least [0064]. For example, parents that are assisting in funding a linked transaction account to be used by a child away at school may monitor to ensure the child is using the linked transaction account as instructed. In some instances, mobile devices may receive notifications only if transactions are attempted using the linked transaction account that violate one or more transaction controls. See at least [0046].)
From the teaching of the second embodiment of Perez, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the user ID of the first embodiment of Perez to be of a second user different from the first user, as taught by the second embodiment of Perez, in order to improve a parents ability to monitor and control a child’s payment account (see Perez at least at [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Perez discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and the first embodiment of Perez further discloses in response to determining that the utilization authority for the payment means is given to the second user, further determining based on the user ID of the second user and the first product information whether the first product belongs to a second product category that is a product category, for which an upper limit amount for purchase by the second user is defined, and a price of the first product exceeds the upper limit amount (The transaction processing module of the processing server may begin processing of the transaction by determining if the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls. The determination may be based on criteria set forth in the identified linked profile. If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then, the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. See at least [0065]-[0066]. Transaction controls may include, for instance, controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data, or a combination thereof. See at least [0042].), and
in response to determining that the first product belongs to the second product category and that the price of the first product exceeds the upper limit amount, transmitting a signal indicating that the payment processing for the first product utilizing the payment means is not permitted to the store terminal of the first store (The transaction processing module of the processing server may begin processing of the transaction by determining if the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls. The determination may be based on criteria set forth in the identified linked profile. If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then, the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. If the transaction processing module determines that the transaction controls are satisfied, or if, the transaction processing module determines that the payment transaction is not subject to any transaction controls, then, the transaction processing module may determine if the linked transaction account is a pre-funded account. The determination may be made based on data included in the identified linked profile or associated therewith, which may indicate if the linked transaction account must have a sufficient balance to cover a payment transaction for approval and processing thereof. See at least [0065]-[0067]. Transaction at a point of sale device at a merchant, see at least [0111].).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of US 20120030109 A1 (“Dooley”).
Regarding claim 3, Perez discloses the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and the first embodiment of Perez further discloses the first product comprises a plurality of first products, and the server apparatus is configured to execute: determining a category to which the plurality of first products belong and a condition (The transaction processing module of the processing server may begin processing of the transaction by determining if the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls. The determination may be based on criteria set forth in the identified linked profile. If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then, the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. See at least [0065]-[0066]. Transaction controls may include, for instance, controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data, or a combination thereof. See at least [0042].), and
in response to determining a condition, transmitting a further signal indicating that payment processing for the ones of the plurality of first products utilizing the payment means is not permitted to the store terminal of the first store (If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. If the transaction controls are not satisfied, such that the transaction controls indicate denial of the payment transaction based on the transaction data, then the transmitting device of the processing server may electronically transmit an authorization response to the payment network indicating denial of the payment transaction. See at least [0066]. Transaction controls may include, for instance, controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data, or a combination thereof. See at least [0042].).
While Perez discloses a condition, Perez does not expressly disclose the condition is whether a sum of prices of ones of the plurality of first products which belong to the second product category exceeds the upper limit amount.
However, Dooley discloses whether a sum of prices of ones of the plurality of first products which belong to the second product category exceeds the upper limit amount (A dependent credit limit interface in the set limit tab. The dependent credit limit interface has a credit limit section that includes a total limit, a MCC limit section, a store limit section, and a search section. the MCC limit section lists in some embodiments the MCC, the type of store, actual store, or product, the limit on the related MCC, and the time for the extent of the limit. Therefore, the primary customer can add different MCCs, such as, but not limited to MCCs for grocery stores, men's and women's clothing stores, electronic sales, eating places and restaurants, package stores (for beer, wine, and liquor), health and beauty shops, etc. to a blocked list of purchases that the primary customer wants to regulate or block the dependent customer from making. See at least [0099]-[0100]. Determining whether payment rules are satisfied, see at least [0119].).
From the teaching of Dooley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condition of Pereze to be a condition of whether a sum of prices of ones of the plurality of first products which belong to the second product category exceeds the upper limit amount, as taught by Dooley, in order to help customers limit the debt that any consumers authorized to use the credit card account of the customers can accrue (See Dooley at least at [0002]), and in order to enhance a customer’s ability to view and control transactions (see Dooley at least at [0003]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of US 20170098267 A1 (“Hokazono”).
Regarding claim 4, Perez discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and the first embodiment of Perez further discloses the server apparatus comprises a storage configured to store data for the second user (storing data in an account database for multiple account profiles, see at least [0053].),
the server apparatus is configured to execute, in response to determining that the utilization authority for the payment means is given to the second user, acquiring data (The querying module of the processing server may execute a query on the linked database to identify a linked profile associated with the transaction message. The linked profile may be identified based on the inclusion of the primary account number stored in the corresponding data element included in the received transaction message. The transaction processing module of the processing server may begin processing of the transaction by determining if the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls. The determination may be based on criteria set forth in the identified linked profile. See at least [0065].), and
in response to determining a condition, transmitting a signal indicating that the payment processing for the first product utilizing the payment means is not permitted to the store terminal of the first store (If the payment transaction is subject to transaction controls due to controls in the linked profile, then the transaction processing module may determine if the transaction controls are satisfied. The determination may be based on a comparison of the transaction controls included in the identified linked profile to the transaction data stored in the one or more additional data elements included in the received transaction message. If the transaction controls are not satisfied, such that the transaction controls indicate denial of the payment transaction based on the transaction data, then the transmitting device of the processing server may electronically transmit an authorization response to the payment network indicating denial of the payment transaction. See at least [0066]. Transaction controls may include, for instance, controls on transaction amounts, merchants, geographic locations, products, merchant categories or industries, transaction times, transaction dates, other transaction data, or a combination thereof. See at least [0042].).
While Perez discloses storing data, Perez does not expressly disclose storing allergen information that is information on an allergenic substance. Furthermore, while Perez discloses acquires data, Perez does not expressly disclose acquires raw material information that is information indicating a raw material for the first product, and determines based on the allergen information and the raw material information whether the allergenic substance for the second user is contained in the raw material for the first product. Furthermore, while Perez discloses determining a condition, Perez does not expressly disclose determines that the allergenic substance for the second user is contained in the raw material for the first product.
However, Hokazono discloses storing allergen information that is information on an allergenic substance (storing identification information of each customer, an allergen, and information about a restriction on ingestion of the allergen, see at least [0050].);
acquires raw material information that is information indicating a raw material for the first product, and determines based on the allergen information and the raw material information whether the allergenic substance for the second user is contained in the raw material for the first product (acquiring allergen information, acquiring a product information, acquiring information of ingredients in the product, determining whether the allergen is in the product, see at least [0054]-[0058].);
determines that the allergenic substance for the second user is contained in the raw material for the first product (acquiring allergen information, acquiring a product information, acquiring information of ingredients in the product, determining whether the allergen is in the product, see at least [0054]-[0058]. In the case where the product contains a complete elimination target allergen for the corresponding individual, a character string saying “CONSUMPTION IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN” is printed as the adequate intake of the product. When a single product contains a plurality of allergens for the corresponding individual, the character string of “CONSUMPTION IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN” is printed if at least one of the allergens is a complete elimination target. According to the example of the receipt R1, a character string saying “(ADEQUATE INTAKE: CONSUMPTION IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN” in line 32 illustrates this case. See at least [0122]. See also [0138], [0148], and FIG. 21.).
From the teaching of Hokazono, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the storing of Perez to store allergen information that is information on an allergenic substance, as taught by Hokaono, and to modify the acquiring of Perez to acquire raw material information that is information indicating a raw material for the first product, and determines based on the allergen information and the raw material information whether the allergenic substance for the second user is contained in the raw material for the first product, as taught by Hokazono, and to modify the determining of Perez to determine that the allergenic substance for the second user is contained in the raw material for the first product, as taught by Hokazono, in order to improving customer experience associated with improving warning customers that order items with a restricted food ingredient (see Hokazono at least at [0003]-[0005]), and to ease burden of customers and improve quality of life of customers (see Hokazono at least at [0046], [0058]-[0059], and [0214]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8127982 B1 (“Casey”) discloses establishing financial transaction rules to control one or more subsidiary financial accounts. In one embodiment, a financial account management application stored on a processor-based device may provide an interface for defining financial transaction rules to be applied to a subsidiary account. The financial transaction rules may be based upon transaction amounts, aggregate spending amounts over a period, merchant categories, specific merchants, geographic locations, or the like. The device may update the financial transaction rules associated with a subsidiary account by communicating the rules to an appropriate financial server. Accordingly, transactions made using the subsidiary account by a subsidiary account holder may be evaluated against the defined rules, wherein an appropriate control action is carried out if a financial transaction rule is violated.
US 9031867 B1 (“Crawford”) discloses “A benefit of the method and system is that it allows users, such as parents; family members; and trusted associates, such as doctors or school officials; to control how the money can be allocated to certain items at restaurants to avoid allergies or to control spending limitations. For example, the parent of a college-enrolled student can transfer a set amount of money into the student's account with the comfort of knowledge that the student can only spend that money on food, without worrying about the "wasteful" purchases that many young adults are prone to making. As a further example, a doctor or parent/caregiver could limit the available food offerings to those that fit within a customizable diet, blocking the purchase of foods containing ingredients that the purchaser is allergic to or otherwise unable to eat.” (See Crawford at least at col. 2, lines 18-31).
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 at (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