DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 12/30/25. Claims 1, 9 and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 10/8/25 and 11/6/25. The submissions were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting: The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
An updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that provide amendments add technological details that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner disagrees.
For the purposes of the two step 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, the Examiner addresses the amended claim 9. The amended claim 9 recites:
A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device of a user, a plurality of user preferences for performing transactions using a plurality of accounts of the user;
acquiring current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user;
dynamically selecting a default payment account from the plurality of accounts based on (a) the current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user and (b) a user preference of the plurality of user preferences received from the user, the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account;
receiving a request for a transaction to transfer funds to a recipient including an amount of the funds to transfer;
determining, based on a current account balance of the default payment account, that the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value;
generating, responsive to the determination that the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user.
1) receiving user preferences is not an additional element but merely further describes the abstract idea of user confirmation based insufficient payment funds management (e.g.: user selection/input/information about how to manage insufficient funds).
2) “dynamically selecting” is an additional element but the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the processor dynamically selects “default payment account”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
3) Expanding the definition of user preferences (e.g.: “ a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account”) does not make it an additional element. It merely further defines the abstract idea.
4) “would cause” is an addition element but the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the processor determination that “the amount of transaction” would cause/causes “the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
As such, any additional elements in the amended claims do not integrate the abstract into a practical application and/or are significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than providing mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
As such, the rejection is maintained. An updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
103: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the references recited in the previous rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
Previous references US 20080006685 A1 (Rackley) and US 20120150669 A1 (Langley) in combination with new reference US 10692059 B1 (Thome) disclose all features of the amended claims including payment suggestion with alternative payment when there are insufficient funds to pay with the default/primary payment instrument.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of US Patent No. 11288660 (‘660) and claims 1 and 9 of US Patent No. 12079802 (‘802). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the patents anticipate the claim limitations of the current application, see MPEP 1504.06(II).
Current application 18/802,957
Patent ‘660
Patent ‘802
Claims 1, 9 and 16
Claims 1 and 12
Claims 1 and 9
receiving, by a computer system from a mobile device of a user, a plurality of user preferences for performing transactions using a plurality of accounts of the user
acquiring, by the computer system, current account balance information from a database for a plurality of accounts of a user;
acquiring, by a computer system, account balance information from a database of a financial institution computing system for a first account of a user at a financial institution associated with the financial institution computing system
acquiring, by a computer system, account balance information from a database of a financial institution computing system for a first account of a user at a financial institution associated with the financial institution computing system
dynamically selecting, by the computer system, a default payment account from the plurality of accounts based on (a) the current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user and (b) a user preference of the plurality of user preferences received from the user, the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account
generating, by the computer system, a first screen display showing the account balance information for the first account;
providing, by the computer system, the first screen display to a mobile device of the user;
generating, by the computer system, a first screen display showing the account balance information for the first account;
providing, by the computer system, the first screen display to a mobile device of the user.
receiving, by the computer system, a request for a transaction to transfer funds to a recipient including an amount of the funds to transfer
receiving, by the computer system, a request from the user for a mobile wallet
transaction, the mobile wallet transaction transferring funds to a recipient
receiving, by the computer system, a request for a mobile wallet transaction, the mobile wallet transaction transferring funds to a recipient
determining, by the computer system, based on a current account balance of the default payment account, that the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value
receiving, by the computer system, a threshold minimum value for an account balance in the first account;
determining, by the computer system, that the mobile wallet transaction causes the account balance in the first account to decrease below the threshold minimum value;
receiving, by the computer system via the mobile device, a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the first account;
determining, by the computer system, that the mobile wallet transaction causes the account balance in the first account to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value;
responsive to the determination by the computer system that the transaction causes the account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value, generating, by the computer system, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user;
responsive to the determination by the computer system that the mobile wallet transaction causes the account balance to decrease below the threshold minimum value, generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user
responsive to the determination by the computer system that the mobile wallet transaction causes the account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value, generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user
providing, by the computer system, the screen display to a mobile device of the user;
providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user
providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user
receiving, by the computer system via the mobile device, a selection of the link associated with the second account of the user;
receiving a selection of the link associated with the second account of the user
receiving, by the computer system via the mobile device, a selection of the link associated with the second account of the user
generating, by the computer system, responsive to the determination that the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user
responsive to the receipt of receiving the selection of the link associated with the
second account of the user, generating, by the computer system, a code in a track 1 or track 2 format, the code including a unique transaction identifier for the mobile wallet transaction;
tokenizing, by the computer system, an account number of the second account;
incorporating, by the computer system, the tokenized account number into the code
tokenizing, by the computer system, an account number of the second account
generating, by the computer system, an optical code associated with the second account, the optical code incorporating the tokenized account number of the second account
transmitting, by the computer system, the optical code to the mobile device for the transaction.
transmitting, by the computer system, the code to the mobile device
transmitting, by the computer system, the optical code to the mobile device for the mobile wallet transaction
receiving, by the computer system, a value associated with the mobile wallet;
determining that a portion of the code matches the value; and
transmitting, by the computer system, the funds to the recipient responsive to the determination that the portion of the code matches the value
‘660 and ‘802 do not teach
“receiving, by a computer system from a mobile device of a user, a plurality of user preferences for performing transactions using a plurality of accounts of the user”
“dynamically selecting, by the computer system, a default payment account from the plurality of accounts based on (a) the current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user and (b) a user preference of the plurality of user preferences received from the user, the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account”.
However, US 2008/0006685 A1 (Rackley) teaches,
receiving, by a computer system and from a mobile device of a user, a plurality of user preferences for performing transactions using a plurality of accounts of the user (FIG. 19-22, para. 62-65),
dynamically selecting, by the computer system, a default payment account from the plurality of accounts based on (a) the current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user and (b) a user preference of the plurality of user preferences received from the user, the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account (para. 380).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile wallet account balance of ‘660 and ‘802 with real time account balance of Rackley because real time account balance improves the mobile account balance by providing instantaneous account balance (see Rackley, abstract).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-11, 14-15, 17 and 21-24 of ‘660 and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 of ‘802 recite limitations that are essentially same as the limitations of the dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 of the current application. As such, ‘660 and ‘802 teach the dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 of the current application.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 1-8), an apparatus (claims 9-15) and an article of manufacture (claims 16-20. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 9 (from claims 1, 9 and 16) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of user confirmation based insufficient payment funds management, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A computer system comprising:
one or more processors; and
non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device of a user, a plurality of user preferences for performing transactions using a plurality of accounts of the user;
acquiring current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user;
dynamically selecting a default payment account from the plurality of accounts based on (a) the current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user and (b) a user preference of the plurality of user preferences received from the user, the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account;
receiving a request for a transaction to transfer funds to a recipient including an amount of the funds to transfer;
determining, based on a current account balance of the default payment account, that the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value;
generating, responsive to the determination that the amount of the transaction would cause the current account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user;
providing the screen display to the mobile device of the user;
receiving, via the mobile device, a selection of the link associated with the second account of the user;
generating an optical code associated with the second account, the optical code incorporating a tokenized account number of the second account;
transmitting the optical code to the mobile device for the transaction.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A computer system comprising”, “one or more processors”, “non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[receiving], from a mobile device of a user”. The mobile device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“dynamically selecting [a default payment account …]”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “default payment account” is dynamically selected, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[determining, …, that the amount of the transaction] would cause [the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease …]”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “amount of the transaction” would cause “the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“generating, […], a screen display including a link […]“, “providing the screen display to the mobile device of the user”, “receiving, via the mobile device, a selection of the link […]”, “generating an optical code […], the optical code incorporating [a tokenized account number of the second account], “transmitting the optical code to the mobile device for the transaction”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “generating an optical code […], the optical code incorporating [a tokenized account number of the second account]” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “a tokenized account number of the second account” are incorporated into “the optical code”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of user confirmation based insufficient payment funds management.
Continuing the analysis with the dependent claims, claim 2 recites “wherein the request for the transaction is based on a user interaction on a second screen display presenting the current account balance information for the plurality of accounts including the default payment account” additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and additional element.
The additional elements of:
“a user interaction on a second screen display presenting […]” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of user confirmation based insufficient payment funds management..
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite “transmitting, by the computer system, the funds to the recipient, wherein the funds are transmitted from the second account of the user”, additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and additional element.
The additional elements of:
“transmitting, by the computer system, [the funds …, wherein the funds] are transmitted […]” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of user confirmation based insufficient payment funds management..
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite “updating, by the computer system, responsive to transmitting the funds to the recipient, the current account balance information of the second account”, “generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including the updated account balance information of the second account”, “providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user”, additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and additional element.
The additional elements of:
“generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including […]” and “providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of user confirmation based insufficient payment funds management..
Analysis of dependent claims 5-8, 12-15 and 19-20, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080006685 A1 (Rackley) in view of US 10692059 B1 (Thome) in further view of US 20120150669 A1 (Langley).
As to claims 1, 9 and 16.
Rackely teaches,
receiving, by a computer system and from a mobile device of a user, a plurality of user preferences for performing transactions using a plurality of accounts of the user (FIG. 19-22, para. 62-65 “a user uses a "PayAnyone" payment option, selects a name from a list, and uses a "recipient defined" payment method”, “a user uses a "PayAnyone" payment option, selects a payee, and selects a payment method”),
acquiring, by the computer system, account balance information from a database for each of the plurality of accounts of a user (FIG. 17, 32, para. 144 “information associated with a payment source (PS) 30 includes … account balances”, 332-333 “The account balances and other related information of these payment sources are also displayed with these screen views”);
dynamically selecting, by the computer system, a default payment account from the plurality of accounts (para. 362 “the user's default financial institution (FI) 30A is described as the selected payment source”) based on (a) the current account balance information for each of the plurality of accounts of the user (para. 363 “verify whether the selected payment source has sufficient funds for making the payment”) and (b) a user preference received from the user (para. 62-65), the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value for an account balance in the default payment account (para. 359 “the user is offered following options: (1) to pay the minimum amount due”, para. 400 “the user is presented with a screen 2314 that displays the default payment source (e.g. Bank of USA), available balances in the default accounts of the default payment source, and prompts the user to confirm the selected default”);
receiving, by the computer system, a request for a transaction to transfer funds to a recipient including an amount of the funds to transfer (para. 363 “the user is ready to pay a bill, at step 1804 he/she selects a particular bill to pay. As shown in the exemplary screen views 1712 and 1714, the user selects a payment source and decides/enters an amount to pay”);
determining, by the computer system and based on a current account balance of the default payment account (para. 363 “verify whether the selected payment source has sufficient funds for making the payment”), that the amount of the funds to transfer would cause the current account balance of the default payment account to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value (para. 363 “verify whether the selected payment source has sufficient funds for making the payment”, para. 364 “If sufficient funds are not available to cover the payment...”);
Rackley does not teach,
responsive to the determination by the computer system that the amount of the funds transfer would cause the account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value, generating, by the computer system, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user;
providing, by the computer system, the screen display to a mobile device of the user;
receiving, by the computer system via the mobile device, a selection of the link associated with the second account of the user;
generating, by the computer system, an optical code associated with the second account, the optical code incorporating a tokenized account number of the second account;
transmitting, by the computer system, the optical code to the mobile device for the transaction.
however, Thome teaches,
responsive to the determination by the computer system that the amount of the funds transfer would cause the account balance to decrease below the user-defined threshold minimum value (c. 42, ll. 1-3 “determines that the debit card account has insufficient funds available for the purchase”), generating, by the computer system, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the user (c. 42, ll. 3-10 “Based on the list of financial accounts, the computer system determines an alternate account that has access to sufficient funds for use for the purchase. The computer system then sends a message to cause the mobile device to display an indication that the account selected by the consumer has insufficient funds for the purchase, and to provide the consumer with the option of using the alternate account”);
providing, by the computer system, the screen display to a mobile device of the user (c. 42, ll. 1-10);
receiving, by the computer system via the mobile device, a selection of the link associated with the second account of the user (c. 52, ll. 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine mobile account balance management of Rackley with alternative account suggestion based on default account insufficient funds of Thome because alternative account suggestion based on default account insufficient funds improves mobile account balance management to provide successful settlement by user confirmation based on payment with alternative account.
combination of Rackley and Thome do not teach,
generating, by the computer system, an optical code associated with the second account, the optical code incorporating a tokenized account number of the second account;
transmitting, by the computer system, the optical code to the mobile device for the transaction.
however, Langley teaches,
generating, by the computer system, an optical code associated with the second account, the optical code incorporating a tokenized account number of the second account (FIG.s 10B and 10D, items 804A, 804B, para. 164-173);
transmitting, by the computer system, the optical code to the mobile device for the transaction (FIG.s 10B and 10D, items 804A, 804B para. 164-173).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine mobile account balance management of Rackley with alternative account suggestion based on default account insufficient funds of Thome with transaction code of Langley because transaction code improves mobile account balance management by streamlining transaction authorization, see Langley, ¶ 169.
with respect to claim 9,
Rackley also teaches,
a computer system (para. 129) comprising,
one or more processors (para. 129, 131);
non-transitory machinereadable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (para. 130-131).
with respect to claim 16,
Rackley also teaches,
a non-transitory computer-readable media with computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (para. 130-131), comprising.
As to claim 2, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rackley also teaches,
wherein the request for the transaction is based on a user interaction on a second screen display presenting the account balance information for the plurality of accounts including the default payment account (para. 363, 365).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 16.
Rackley also teaches,
transmitting, by the computer system, the funds to the recipient, wherein the funds are transmitted from the second account of the user (para. 331).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 3, 9 and 10, 16 and 17.
Rackley also teaches,
updating, by the computer system, responsive to transmitting the funds to the recipient, account balance information of the second account (para. 361, 382);
generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including the updated account balance information of the second account (para. 382);
providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user (para. 382).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 16.
Rackley also teaches,
transferring, by the computer system, the funds from the second account to the default payment account (para. 331).
As to claims 6 and 13, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 5, 9 and 12.
Rackley also teaches,
updating, by the computer system, responsive to transferring the funds from the second account to the default payment account, the account balance information for the default payment account (para. 361, 382);
generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including the updated account balance information for the default payment account (para. 382);
providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user (para. 382).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 16.
Rackley also teaches,
wherein the screen display includes a plurality of links associated with the plurality of accounts of the user and account balances associated with each of the plurality of accounts (para. 473),
receiving, by the computer system, a second request for a second transaction via the mobile device, the second request based on a selection of a link of the plurality of links associated with the plurality of accounts (para. 473);
transmitting, by the computer system, the funds to the recipient from an account of the plurality of accounts associated with the selected link of the plurality of links (para. 473).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rackley in view of Thome in view of Langley in further view of US 20150254699 A1 (Bondesen)
As to claims 8 and 15, combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
combination of Rackley, Thome and Langley do not teach,
determining, by the computer system, first rewards information regarding first rewards available to the user based on transmitting the funds to the recipient from the default payment account;
determining, by the computer system, second rewards information regarding second rewards available to the user based on transmitting the funds to the recipient from the second account;
generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including at least one of the first rewards information or second rewards information ();
providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user.
however, Bondesen teaches,
determining, by the computer system, first rewards information regarding first rewards available to the user based on transmitting the funds to the recipient from the default payment account (para. 135, 140-142, 150-152);
determining, by the computer system, second rewards information regarding second rewards available to the user based on transmitting the funds to the recipient from the second account (para. 135, 140-142, 150-152);
generating, by the computer system, a second screen display including at least one of the first rewards information or second rewards information (para. 135, 140-142, 150-152);
providing, by the computer system, the second screen display to the mobile device of the user (para. 135, 145, 146).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine mobile account balance management of Rackley with alternative account suggestion based on default account insufficient funds of Thome with transaction code of Langley with spending limits of Bondesen because spending limits improves mobile account balance management by “reduc[ing] a customer's burden by mainstreaming financial account information and financial offers within digital wallets”, see Bondesen, ¶ 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights