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 .
Summary
This Final Office Action in response to the communication received on January 2, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is August 19, 2024, and is a continuation of 17/189,008 with effective filing date March 1, 2023, and is a continuation of 15/489,495 with an effective filing date of April 17, 2017.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claims 1m, 8, and 14 are acknowledged.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 8-13 are processes and Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
A mobile device comprising:
a network interface structured to communicate data over a network; and
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory structured to store instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processing circuit to:
transmit, to a remote computing system, an instance of user activity information including a user communication associated with the mobile device (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
receive and implement, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and the user spending profile further based on identifying at least one of (i) a relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) Organizing Human Activity-Fundamental Economic Practices, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010). The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk. The applicant in Bilski claimed “a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk,” i.e. how to protect against risk. 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1005. The method allowed energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand for energy. The Supreme Court determined that hedging is “fundamental economic practice” and therefore is an “unpatentable abstract idea.” 561 U.S. at 611-12, 95 USPQ2d at 1010).
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) is directed to a series of steps for implementing a time-limited budget constraint, which is a commercial interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and performed using mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of a network interface, a network, a processing circuit, a processor, a memory, a mobile device, and a remote computing system does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human interactions, nor mental processes. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: a network interface, a network, a processing circuit, a processor, a memory, a mobile device, and a remote computing system that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) transmit user activity information, and b) receive and implement a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 14) is ineligible.
Claim 2 (and similarly Claim 15) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 (and similarly Claim 16) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Claim 4 (and similarly Claims 11 and 19) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For the additional limitation of a monitoring device, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 (and similarly Claim 20) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For the additional limitation of a search engine, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 (and similarly Claim 12) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 7 (and similarly Claim 13) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 9 (and similarly Claim 17) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For the additional limitation of a monitoring device, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 (and similarly Claim 18) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Prior Art
The prior arts of record fail to teach the overall combination for independent claims 1, 8, and 14. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following:
A mobile device comprising:
a network interface structured to communicate data over a network; and
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory structured to store instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processing circuit to:
transmit, to a remote computing system, an instance of user activity information including a user communication associated with the mobile device; and
receive and implement, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and the user spending profile further based on identifying at least one of (i) a relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period. (Emphasis added to highlight features that distinguish over the prior art).
US Pat Pub No 2018/0240108 “Boss” discloses obtaining, by a computing device, user contextual data; determining, by the computing device, a potential user purchase and an associated purchase category; and dynamically determining, by the computing device, a flexible spending rule for the purchase category based on one or more stored spending rules and the contextual data, wherein the flexible spending rule changes an amount of currency available to a user through the computing device. Boss fails to disclose a time-limited budget restriction that is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and identifying at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the user overspending period or (ii) that the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic.
US Pat Pub No 2013/0024364 “Shrivastava” teaches a transaction payment control processor-implemented method, comprising: obtaining, from a user device, payment control parameters via a user interface; storing the payment control parameters with an account; receiving a transaction payment request including payment account information and purchase information; retrieving the stored payment control parameters based on the payment account information; determining when the purchase information of the transaction payment request violates one or more of the stored payment control parameters; and suspending the transaction payment request and sending an alert message to the user device. Shrivastava fails to teach a time-limited budget restriction that is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and identifying at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the user overspending period or (ii) that the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic.
US Pat No 10,210,569 “Kim” teaches techniques for collecting customer information of users at a centralized location and utilizing the information in an intelligent manner to assist customers in improving spending habits and in meeting budgetary goals. Kim fails to teach a time-limited budget restriction that is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and identifying at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the user overspending period or (ii) that the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic.
US Pat Pub No 2011/0093324 “Fordyce” a transaction handler to process transactions, a data warehouse to store transaction data recording the transactions processed by the transaction handler, a portal coupled with the data warehouse to receive one or more parameters as an input and to provide spending activity information for presentation as a response to the input, and an analytics engine coupled with the portal and the data warehouse to analyze spending activities of a user based on the transaction data and the one or more parameters to generate the spending activity information regarding transactions in a plurality of accounts of the user. Fordyce fails to teach a time-limited budget restriction that is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and identifying at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the user overspending period or (ii) that the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic.
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.
Claims1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,628. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,067,628 corresponds to the Reference claims. The similarities are shown by highlighting the similar language and limitations of each claim side by side in the table below:
US Application Number 18/809082
U.S. Patent No. 12,067,628
1. A mobile device comprising:
a network interface structured to communicate data over a network; and
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory structured to store instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processing circuit to:
transmit, to a remote computing system, an instance of user activity information including a user communication associated with the mobile device; and
receive and implement, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and
the user spending profile further based on identifying at least one of (i) a relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period
and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.
1. A mobile device comprising:
a network interface structured to communicate data over a network; and
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory structured to store instructions that are executable by the processor and cause the processor to:
generate and transmit a request to register for an alert program to a remote computing system;
render, on a display of the mobile device, a registration interface comprising a prompt asking permission to access user activity information;
responsive to detecting, by the mobile device, a user input indicative of permission to access the user activity information, transmit, by the mobile device to the remote computing system, an indication of approval;
transmit, by the mobile device to the remote computing system, an instance of the user activity information comprising non-financial activity including a search engine history of the mobile device; and
receive and implement, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, wherein the baseline level of user spending is based on a user transaction history and an average level of user spending over a predetermined time period, wherein a timing of at least one user overspending period in which a level of user spending is above the baseline level of user spending by more than a predetermined amount is based on determining that the non-financial activity is indicative of a potential transaction and that the potential transaction is above the baseline level of user spending, wherein the baseline activity characteristic is based on at least user location information, the user spending profile further based on identifying at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period determined based on an overspending history on the user payment account and the timing of the at least one user overspending period and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.
8. A computer-implemented method comprising:
transmitting, by a mobile device to a remote computing system, an instance of user activity information including a user communication associated with the mobile device; and
receiving and implementing, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, and
the user spending profile further based on identifying at least one of (i) a relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period
and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.
8. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating and transmitting, by a mobile device, a request to register for an alert program to a remote computing system;
rendering, on a display of the mobile device, a registration interface comprising a prompt asking permission to access user activity information;
responsive to detecting, by the mobile device, a user input indicative of permission to access the user activity information, transmitting, by the mobile device to the remote computing system, an indication of approval;
transmitting, by the mobile device to the remote computing system, an instance of the user activity information comprising non-financial activity including a search engine history of the mobile device; and
receiving and implementing, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, wherein the baseline level of user spending is based on user transaction history and an average level of user spending over a predetermined time period, wherein a timing of at least one user overspending period in which a current level of user spending is above the baseline level of user spending by more than a predetermined amount is based on determining that the non-financial activity is indicative of a potential transaction and that the potential transaction is above the baseline level of user spending, wherein the baseline activity characteristic is based on at least user location information, the user spending profile further based on at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period determined based on an overspending history on the user payment account and the timing of the at least one user overspending period and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.
14. A non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied therein that, when executed by a processing circuit of a mobile device associated with a remote computing system, cause the mobile device to perform operations to present an overspending alert to a user, the operations including:
transmitting, to the remote computing system, an instance of user activity information including a user communication associated with the mobile device; and
receiving and implementing, from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic,
and the user spending profile further based on identifying at least one of (i) a relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period
and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.
14. A non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied therein that, when executed by a processor of a mobile device associated with a remote computing system, cause the mobile device to perform operations to present an overspending alert to a user, the operations including:
rendering, on a display of the mobile device, a registration interface comprising a prompt asking permission to access user activity information;
responsive to detecting, by the mobile device, a user input indicative of permission to access the user activity information, transmitting, by the mobile device to the remote computing system, an indication of approval;
transmitting, by the mobile device to the remote computing system, an instance of the user activity information comprising non-financial activity including a search engine history related to a product, a location data packet received from a global positioning system (GPS) device, a user health data packet received from a monitoring device, and social media information accessible by the mobile device; and
receiving and implementing, by the mobile device from the remote computing system, a time-limited budget restriction on a user payment account, wherein the time-limited budget restriction is based at least in part on a user spending profile, the user spending profile based on the instance of the user activity information as compared to a baseline level of user spending and a baseline activity characteristic, wherein the baseline level of user spending is based on a user transaction history, an average level of user spending over a predetermined time period, wherein a timing of at least one user overspending period in which a current level of user spending is above the baseline level of user spending by more than a predetermined amount is based on determining that the non-financial activity is indicative of a potential transaction including the product and that a price of the product is above the baseline level of user spending, wherein the price of the product is based on searching a database for the product, wherein the baseline activity characteristic is based on at least user location information over the predetermined time period and proximity to other users during the predetermined time period, and a change in income of the user, the user spending profile further based on at least one of (i) a temporal relationship between a deviation from the baseline activity characteristic and the at least one user overspending period or (ii) the at least one user overspending period corresponds to a compliance with the baseline activity characteristic, and wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period determined based on an overspending history on the user payment account and the timing of the at least one user overspending period and is configured to prevent the user payment account from completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.
Examiner notes that the dependent claims are rejected under obvious type double patent based on the correlation as follows:
US Application Number 18/809,082
U.S. Patent No. 12,067,628
US Application Number 18/809,082
U.S. Patent No. 12,067,628
2
2
11
11
3
3
12
12
4
4
13
13
5
5
15
15
6
6
16
16
7
7
17
17
9
9
18
18
10
10
19
19
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The claims do not merely recite a budget restriction, but integrate these ideas into an improved process for limiting financial transactions based on non-financial information. The additional steps specifically relate to the particular variables used, how the variables are gathered, the process by which the budget restrictions are determined, and how the result of the user activity information (specifically, the user communication associated with the mobile device) is used. The totality of the steps act in concert to improve another technical field, specifically the field of transaction monitoring and processing, by controlling the transaction completion/processing. Thus, the claim integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
The arguments are not found to be persuasive as the claims are merely directed to a step of transmitting information, and receiving and implementing additional information. These steps could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, but are automated using a processing circuit and remote computing system. This is considered to be mental processes. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The information that is being transmitted and received deals with budgeting and transaction approval. This would be considered a Fundamental Economic Principle and thus categorized as Organizing Human Activity. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) Organizing Human Activity-Fundamental Economic Practices, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010). The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk. The applicant in Bilski claimed “a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk,” i.e. how to protect against risk. 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1005. The method allowed energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand for energy. The Supreme Court determined that hedging is “fundamental economic practice” and therefore is an “unpatentable abstract idea.” 561 U.S. at 611-12, 95 USPQ2d at 1010).
The argument that the claims are directed to transaction monitoring and processing, by controlling the transaction completion/processing is not found to be persuasive because the details of how the controlling are not clear. The claims recite “wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period and is configured to prevent the user payment account form completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.” Included in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, could include taking any cash over the “threshold” out of a user’s wallet during the time period. As claimed, the technical solution is not claimed.
Applicant additionally argues that the “totality of the steps act in concert to improve another technical field, specifically the field of transaction monitoring and processing, by controlling the transaction completion/processing. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.” The claims recite “wherein the time-limited budget restriction comprises a threshold and a definite time period and is configured to prevent the user payment account form completing transactions above the threshold during the definite time period.” Included in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, could include taking any cash over the “threshold” out of a user’s wallet during the time period. As claimed, there is not an improvement to a technical field.
Conclusion
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 REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights