DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 01/16/2026.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended. Claims 21, 28, and 35 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 21, 28, and 35 being independent). Claims 1-20, 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 have been canceled.
The amendment filed 01/16/2026 to the claims has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 9-13):
(1) Applicant’s arguments that “1. Disputed Claims Include Ordered Combination of Operations that Go Far Beyond Human Decision-Making… Applicant respectfully contends that the disputed claims (e.g., representative independent claim 21) as presently presented are consistent with this standard in presenting non-generic hardware and software components to perform an ordered combination of operations. Indeed, humans are incapable of performing the following ordered combination of operations:” (see pages 10-11), are not found persuasive.
Response (1): In the instant application, under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the computer components such as processors or a machine learning (ML) module. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Managing financial services using digital payment instruments is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2) Applicant’s arguments that “2. Disputed Claims Represent an Improvement to Technological Field… Regarding whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception under Eligibility Step 2A analysis, §2106.04(d) of the MPEP establishes that a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is patent eligible.” (see page 13), are not found persuasive.
Response (2): Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of “one or more processors”, “a machine learning (ML) module”, “a digital wallet module”, “a neural network”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “server” are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor and server. The claim limits also recite the use of “one or more processors”, “a machine learning (ML) module”, “a digital wallet module”, “a neural network”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “server” as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
With regard to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot as a new ground of rejection has been added and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language. As noted in the citation above the prior art and it is addressed by the rejections under 35 USC 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 19 and claim 28, line 14: “circuity” should be “circuitry”. Claim 28, line 2: “having with a set of …” should be “having a set of …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a “machine learning (ML) module” or a “ML module” in claims 21 and 28. And, the “ML module” is in claim 35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the circuity” in line 14 and claim 35 recites the limitation “the ML module” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be -- a circuitry -- and -- a ML module --.
Claim limitation “module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Since the specification fails to sufficiently disclose the module to perform the claimed function in view of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, the claim is indefinite under 112(b) (see MPEP 2181.II.B) because the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 21, 28, and 35, the amended claim “applying the trained ML model” is not described in the application as filed, and the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how the trained ML model is applied to determine the account data, a current user status level among a plurality of user status levels associated with the financial account, wherein the current user status level based on accumulated overall financial assets of the financial account because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
In claim 21, the amended claim “one or more processors deployed across a plurality of server computing devices that are distributed across a plurality of geographic locations;” is not described in the application as filed, and the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how one processor can be deployed across a plurality of server computing devices distributed across a plurality of geographic locations because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
In claim 28, the amended claim “A computer program product ….. a set of instructions of computer- executable program code, which when executed by one or more processors deployed across a plurality of server computing devices that are distributed across a plurality of geographic locations,” is not described in the application as filed, and the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how multiple geographically disbursed servers share one computer program product having one set of instructions of computer-executable program code because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing digital financial services and facilitating the management of financial payment instruments to an individual which contains the steps of determining, generating, causing, receiving, detecting, executing, transmitting, and displaying. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 21 is direct to a system, claim 28 is direct to a computer program product, and claim 35 is direct to a method, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing digital financial services and facilitating the management of financial payment instruments to an individual is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {…distributed across a plurality of geographic locations; one or more data stores to store one or more data types including account data associated with a financial account of a user, determining, …. to the account data, a current user status level among a plurality of user status levels associated with the financial account, wherein the current user status level based on accumulated overall financial assets of the financial account, causing …. to generate a digital wallet associated with the financial account, determining, based on the determined current user status level, a maximum monetary spend limit associated with the digital wallet, causing display …. a digital representation of the digital wallet user and one or more user- engageable use restriction input settings for the digital wallet, receiving, ….. , a monetary spend limit that corresponds to the maximum monetary spend limit, detecting a financial transaction for a monetary amount by the digital wallet at a merchant, executing a comparison between the monetary amount and the monetary spend limit, automatically generating and transmitting, when the monetary amount is greater than the monetary spend limit, ….. declining the financial transaction and an electronic notification to ….. that the financial transaction was declined, the electronic notification comprising a user-engageable link, automatically displaying, in response to engagement of the user-engageable link, a transaction history of the declined financial transaction. }
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as determining a user status level associated with the financial account and transmitting a notification to the user when the financial transaction is declined based on the monetary spend limit.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “processors” , “digital wallet module having circuitry”, “machine learning (ML) module”, “server computing devices”, “neural network”, and “graphical user interface (GUI)” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “client device via the GUI”, again describes a generically interactive element, which amounts to simply applying the abstract idea of inputting and/or outputting on a computer. (e.g. “apply it” or equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it 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)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (e.g., “processors” , “digital wallet module having circuitry”, “machine learning (ML) module”, “server computing devices”, “neural network”, “client device”, and “graphical user interface (GUI)”) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [0025]: non-transitory computer readable medium, set of instructions of computer-executable program code, one or more processors of a computing device, mobile application software or desktop application software, client device of a user, graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface of the client device) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it 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)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): 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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., “processors” , “digital wallet module having circuitry”, “machine learning (ML) module”, “server computing devices”, “neural network”, “client device”, and “graphical user interface (GUI)”) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, claims 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al. (hereinafter Ball), US Publication Number 2023/0377034 A1 in view of Figueroa-Ramirez et al. (hereinafter Figueroa-Ramirez), US Publication Number 2024/0135442 A1 in further view of Bondesen et al. (hereinafter Bondesen) US Publication Number 2015/0254645 A1.
Regarding claim 21:
Ball discloses the following:
A server computing system, comprising: (see Ball, [0180] “The one or more processors may be internal and/or local to the apparatus. In this regard, a given circuit or components thereof may be disposed locally (e.g., as part of a local server, a local computing system) or remotely (e.g., as part of a remote server such as a cloud-based server). To that end, a "circuit" as described herein may include components that are distributed across one or more locations.”)
a digital wallet module (reads on “mobile wallet application”) having circuitry; (see Ball, [0029] “The financial institution client application 116 is structured to enable the customer to establish and manage financial accounts…. the financial institution client application 116 includes a circuit embodied within the customer device 110.”, and see also [0034])
a machine learning (ML) module; (see Ball, [0171] “the financial institution computing system 120 may utilize machine learning models and artificial intelligence to implement various embodiments described herein. The machine learning models may save information regarding each users (e.g., all users associated with the financial institution) that includes each user's transaction history, bills, amounts of bills, geographic information, user preferences, age, demographic, income, etc.” and see also [0172])
one or more processors deployed across a plurality of server computing devices that are distributed across a plurality of geographic locations; and (see Ball, [0180] “The one or more processors may be internal and/or local to the apparatus. In this regard, a given circuit or components thereof may be disposed locally (e.g., as part of a local server, a local computing system) or remotely (e.g., as part of a remote server such as a cloud-based server). To that end, a "circuit" as described herein may include components that are distributed across one or more locations.”)
a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors in communication (reads on “the financial institution client application 116 is communicably coupled via the customer network interface 112 over the network 130 to the financial institution computing system 120.”) with the digital wallet module (reads on “the financial institution client application 116”) and the ML module (reads on “the financial institution computing system 120”), the non- transitory memory including one or more data stores to store one or more data types including account data associated with a financial account of a user, and a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: (see Ball, [0029] “The financial institution client application 116 is structured to enable the customer to establish and manage financial accounts. Accordingly, the financial institution client application 116 is communicably coupled via the customer network interface 112 over the network 130 to the financial institution computing system 120. In some embodiments, the financial institution client application 116 includes a circuit embodied within the customer device 110. For example, the financial institution client application 116 may include program logic stored in a system memory of the customer device 110. In such arrangements, the program logic may configure a processor of the customer device 110 to present the user with various graphical user interfaces based on information regarding customer accounts.”)
causing (read on “a customer selection of the digital wallet provisioning button 352 causes the financial institution computing system 120 to tokenize the card number associated with the customer spending account and render the account available for use within the financial institution client application 116”) the circuity of the digital wallet module to generate a digital wallet associated with the financial account, (see Ball, [0069])
determining, based on the determined current user status level, a maximum monetary spend limit associated with the digital wallet, (see Ball, [0056] “the customer may select another option that allocates any available customer funds exceeding a total amount of upcoming payments owed by the customer (e.g., received via the method 400 described in relation to FIG. 4) to the customer spending account to maximize the amount of funds available for general use.”)
causing display of a graphical user interface (GUI) on a user interface of an authenticated client device of the user, the GUI comprising a digital representation of the digital wallet user and one or more user- engageable use restriction input settings for the digital wallet, (see Ball, [0071] “the customer may be presented with the spending limit graphical user interface 358 upon selecting the spending limit button 354 discussed with respect to FIG. 31. In the example shown, the spending limit graphical user interface 358 includes an amount entry field 360, a limit preference indicator 362, and a spending limit establishment button 364. The amount entry field 360 is configured to receive a customer-provided spending limit amount. The limit preference indicator 362 is configured to receive a customer preference as to the period of the spending limit. For example, if the customer enters $100 into the amount entry field 360 and presses a weekly portion of the limit preference indicator 362, the account management circuit 124 establishes a weekly $100 spending limit for the customer.”)
receiving, from the authenticated client device via the GUI, a monetary spend limit that corresponds to the maximum monetary spend limit, (see Ball, [0056] “the customer may select another option that allocates any available customer funds exceeding a total amount of upcoming payments owed by the customer (e.g., received via the method 400 described in relation to FIG. 4) to the customer spending account to maximize the amount of funds available for general use.”)
detecting a financial transaction for a monetary amount by the digital wallet at a merchant, (see Ball, [0057] “if the summation of the amounts exceeds the spending limit, the account management circuit 124 transmits a notification to the customer device 110 and requests approval from the customer prior to allowing the merchant to deduct the funds.”)
executing a comparison between the monetary amount and the monetary spend limit, (see Ball, [0057] “if the summation of the amounts is above the spending limit, the account management circuit 124 denies the transaction request.”)
automatically displaying (reads on “the customer may be brought to another interface containing such suggestions”, “the recommendation may include suggestions as to the customer's expenses.”), in response to engagement of the user-engageable link (reads on “Upon the customer selecting the advising icon 526”), a transaction history (reads on “the recommendation may suggest that the customer discontinue receiving a service from a particular service provider (so as to lower the total amount of the customer's bill payments”) of the declined financial transaction. (see Ball, [0099] “The advising icon 526 is configured to receive a customer input to view various recommendations generated by the customer device 110 and/or financial institution computing system 120 in accordance with the systems and methods disclosed herein. As described herein, program logic of the customer device 110 or the financial institution computing system 120 may be configured to assess account balance information and the customer's transaction history to make various recommendations to the customer. Upon the customer selecting the advising icon 526, the customer may be brought to another interface containing such suggestions.” and [0135] “the recommendation may include suggestions as to the customer's expenses. For example, the recommendation may suggest that the customer discontinue receiving a service from a particular service provider (so as to lower the total amount of the customer's bill payments) if the total amount of the customer's bills each month differs from that of other customers having a similar income to the customer.”, and see also [0132])
Ball does not explicitly disclose the following, however Figueroa-Ramirez further teaches:
determining, by applying the trained ML model to the account data, a current user status level among a plurality of user status levels associated with the financial account, wherein the current user status level based on accumulated overall financial assets of the financial account, (see Figueroa-Ramirez, [0007] “executing a machine learning model trained to infer a dynamic spending limit based on credit card data and credit score, determining purchasing power based on the difference between the dynamic spending limit and an outstanding balance, assigning the purchasing power to one of a plurality of categories based on predetermined category thresholds, generating a graphic representation identifying an assigned category, and triggering presentation of the graphic representation to a user on a user computing device.”, and see also [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify digitally activate the payment card in response to receiving a customer preference/input to activate the account of Ball to include using a machine learning model trained to infer a dynamic spending limit, as taught by Figueroa-Ramirez, in order to provide more options to control the spending limit. (See Figueroa-Ramirez, [0004-0007])
Ball and Figueroa-Ramirez do not explicitly disclose the following, however Bondesen
further teaches:
automatically generating and transmitting (reads on “sends the approval or denial notification back through the payment processing system channels to the merchant 10, which then notifies the user 2”), when the monetary amount is greater than the monetary spend limit (reads on “determines if the transaction information violates any limits associated with the token or the user account” and “transaction amount limits”), an electronic signal to a merchant server declining the financial transaction and an electronic notification to the authenticated client device that the financial transaction was declined, the electronic notification comprising a user-engageable link, and (see Bondesen, [0043] “The tokenization service 50 may also store limits (e.g., geographic limits, transaction amount limits, merchant limits, product limits, any other limit described herein, or the like) associated with the token that may limit the transactions in which the user 2 may enter. “ and [0055] “The issuing financial institution 40 accesses the token and account database 42 to identify the user account associated with the token and determines if the transaction information violates any limits associated with the token or the user account. The issuing financial institution 40 then either approves or denies the transaction and sends the approval or denial notification back through the payment processing system channels to the merchant 10, which then notifies the user 2 that the transaction is allowed or denied.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify digitally activate the payment card in response to receiving a customer preference/input to activate the account of Ball to include sending an approval or denial notification back through the payment processing system channels to the merchant and the user if the transaction information violates any limits associated the user account, as taught by Bondesen, in order to provide more control on the transaction. (See Bondesen, [0043])
Regarding claims 28 and 35: it is similar scope to claim 28, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
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 extension fee 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 YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
March 10, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694