DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/1/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE filed on 9/1/26 and amendment and response filed on 8/3/26. Claims 1, 9 and 16 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting: The rejection is rescinded because of amended claims.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.
The only new additional element in the amended claims is the "database". Receiving financial information from the "database" does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because receiving information a database is 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.
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 reference US 20080006685 A1 (Rackley) discloses all features of the amended claims including balance information and other financial information provided from a database of a financial institution and due date related features.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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 an analysis of (a) the current account balance information acquired from the database for each of the plurality of accounts of the user, (b) account activity information acquired from the database for each of the plurality of accounts, the account activity information comprising a payment due date associated with each account, and [[(b)]] c} a user preference of the plurality of user preferences received from the user, the user preference comprising a user- defined threshold minimum value corresponding to a nonzero 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 and a payment due date associated with 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 prior to the payment due date;
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 prior to the payment due date, a screen display including a link associated with a second account of the plurality of accounts of the use;
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 current account balance information acquired from] the database […]”. 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). Acquired from the "database" does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because interaction with a database is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[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 an analysis of (a) the current account balance information acquired from the database (para. 364 " the MFTSPI message 1812 is communicated to the financial institution 30A, and received at step 1814", para. 32 "the MFTS is coupled for electronic communication with one or more financial service providers at which the user maintains one or more accounts. The financial service provider includes one or more of a bank, a credit card company, a debit card company, a stored value card provider, a credit union, a payment services company, a financial service provider. The MFTS includes a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS) database for storing user information and financial account 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") (b) account activity information acquired from the database for each of the plurality of accounts, the account activity information comprising a payment due date associated with each account (para. 32, 364), and (c) a user preference received from the user (para. 62-65), the user preference comprising a user-defined threshold minimum value corresponding to a nonzero 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 and a payment due date associated with the default payment account (para. 160 "constructs an MFTS payment instruction to a payment instruction recipient, which in some cases is a selected financial service provider or financial institution associated with the selected payment source. The complete MFTS payment instruction typically includes information contained in the mobile payment instruction, together with selected other information stored in the database of the MFTS associated with the mobile device users such as the mobile device user's account number, the appropriate account to use for payment, the amount of the payments, the date and/or time to pay", para. 363 “verify whether the selected payment source has sufficient funds for making the payment”, the Examiner interprets the selected account and date of payment as the due date and sufficient funds check as account balance determination), 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 prior to the payment due date (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...”, Examiner interprets insufficient funds determination as prior to the payment date);
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 prior to the payment due date, 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 prior to the due date (c. 42, ll. 1-3 “determines that the debit card account has insufficient funds available for the purchase”, the Examiner interprets insufficient funds determination as prior to the due date), 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
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 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights