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 .
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s amendment received on 1/21/2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”).
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11-12 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are pending.
Claim Objection
A recitation of “an mobile application” in “manage an mobile application” should be changed to “a mobile application”.
Continuation
This application is a divisional application of U.S. application no. 17/364,225 filed on June 30, 2017, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application no. 16/126,957, filed September 10, 2018 ("Parent Application"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
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 1-9 and 11-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, the examiner finds that the claim recites a system comprising a service device that comprises one or more processors and a memory including instructions that when executed by the one or more processor to cause the server device to perform a function. In the instant claim, that function is “to manage an mobile application on a user device of a secondary user”. The claim’s recitations thereafter is directed to what the transaction application is configured to perform, i.e., “receive, from a processing server computer via the application server device, a digital token for a digital secondary account linked to a primary account of a primary user, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a plurality of protocols indicating transactions that can be authorized at a particular status associated with the digital secondary account; provision, at the transaction application, the digital token for the digital secondary account to be stored on the user device; transmit an itinerary associated with the digital secondary account to the processing server computer via the application server device, wherein the itinerary indicates a plurality of statuses associated with the digital secondary account during specified periods of time; provide the digital token for the digital secondary account to a recipient via the application server device for conducting a transaction having a transaction amount; receive, from the processing server computer via the application server device, a message indicating that the digital token for the digital secondary account is invalid for a first portion of the transaction amount based on the itinerary associated with the digital secondary account, wherein the first portion exceeds a threshold associated with the digital secondary account; transmit, via the application server device, a request to adjust at least one of the plurality of protocols to a user device of the primary user, wherein the plurality of protocols is adjustable by the primary user on the application server device; and complete the transaction by providing payment credentials comprised of the digital token, wherein the transaction is processed using at least a personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user.” In other words, the claim’s main focus is the functionality of transaction application that is not executed by the application server device, but merely uses the application server device to receive, transmit, and provide (i.e., functions that of conduit). To describe another way, the claim does not illuminate the particular function of the server device rather hides the function in its claim construction. As such, one of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and boundaries of the claim. The applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite that the user device of the secondary user is part of the system and that the user device of the secondary user when executing the mobile application performs the recited functions along with the particular function of the application service device to organize and correlate the structures that make up the system in such a manner as to present a complete operative system.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the action will interpret the recited functions of the mobile application to be outside of the scope of the system comprising an application service device comprising one or more processors and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the application server device to: manage an mobile application on a user device of a secondary user.
The dependent claims are also rejected as the claim(s) recitations are directed to the transaction application and its intended use.
In further reference to claim 3, the claim is rejected as the claim subject matter fails to further limit the claim 2 which claim 3 depends as the claimed limitation(s) in claim 3 is recited in claim 2.
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 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, 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, 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, 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 additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether 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 mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-9 and 11-13 are directed to a to a system. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A system comprising:
an application server device comprising one or more processors, and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the application server device to:
manage an mobile application on a user device of a secondary user, wherein the mobile application is configured to:
receive, from a processing server computer via the application server device, a digital token for a digital secondary account linked to a primary account of a primary user, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a plurality of protocols indicating transactions that can be authorized at a particular status associated with the digital secondary account;
provision the digital token for the digital secondary account to be stored on the user device;
transmit an itinerary associated with the digital secondary account to the processing server computer via the application server device, wherein the itinerary indicates a plurality of statuses associated with the digital secondary account during specified periods of time;
provide the digital token for the digital secondary account to a recipient via the application server device for conducting a transaction having a transaction amount;
receive, from the processing server computer via the application server device, a message indicating that the digital token for the digital secondary account is invalid for a first portion of the transaction amount based on the itinerary associated with the digital secondary account, wherein the first portion exceeds a threshold associated with the digital secondary account;
transmit, via the application server device, a request to adjust at least one of the plurality of protocols to a user device of the primary user, wherein the plurality of protocols is adjustable by the primary user on the application server device; and
complete the transaction by providing payment credentials comprised of the digital token, wherein the transaction is processed using at least a personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites managing of transaction processing remotely, particularly completing of a payment transaction to be processed by using two accounts, i.e., personal account of a secondary user (i.e., employee) and a primary account of a primary user (employer), by providing payment credentials that is comprised of identifier of a secondary account that is linked to a primary account. “This enables a user of a primary account to create a limited secondary account for an employee (e.g., a contractor) or other dependent while controlling how that secondary account can be used (see Specification [0046]; [0049]). The claim achieves this by receiving from a processing entity a token (identifier for the secondary account, see [0049] in the specification) for secondary account linked to a primary account of a primary user, wherein the secondary account is associated with a plurality of protocols (i.e., setting or instructions that indicates an authorization rule to be applied under a set of circumstances, see [0023] Specification) indicating transaction that can be authorized at a particular status associated with the secondary account; provision the token for storage; transmit itinerary (status of the secondary account during specified periods of time) associated with the secondary account to the processing entity; provide the token to a recipient for conducting a transaction having a transaction amount; receive from the processing entity a message indicating that the token is invalid for a first portion of the transaction amount based on the itinerary (wherein the first portion exceeds a threshold associated with the secondary account)(see [0068] of Specification, e.g., an amount associated with the transaction may exceed some limit indicated in a protocol); transmit a request to a primary user (i.e., supervisor) to adjust at least one of the plurality protocols (i.e., setting or instructions of authorization rule), and complete the transaction by providing payment credentials comprised of the token. In this way, the transaction is processed using at least a personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user.
In other word, the claim allows an employer to create a custodian payment account linked to the employer account and allows the employer to establish and adjust rules on the use of the custodian payment account that is to be used by an employee (i.e., expense related to a project). The claim further allows split transaction to occur using the primary account of the secondary user (employee) and the primary account of the primary user (employer) on a transaction that exceed amount which has been set by the employer.
The instant specification describes this embodiment in [0068] “For example, if a transaction is requested for $75.00 which is associated with a $50.00 maximum limit, then the service provider, upon determining that the transaction is over the limit, the service provider 110 may generate a second authorization request message for $50.00 to be transmitted to the primary authorization entity server 108(A) and may generate a third authorization request for the remaining balance of the transaction ($25.00) to be transmitted to the secondary authorization entity server 108(B).” The instant specification also describes the use of the token that allows employer to create a secondary payment account that can be used by a temporary employee and also associate the secondary account with a particular project or protocols (rules) (see [0049]). The Specification also describes this split payment concept in paragraph [0095] “Completing the transaction using the primary account and a second primary account may further involve generating a first authorization request message for a first portion of the transaction to be routed to a first authorization entity associated with the primary account, and generating a second authorization request message for a remaining portion of the transaction to be routed to a second authorization entity associated with the second primary account. In these embodiments, the second primary account may be a primary account belonging to a secondary user, which is a user of the client device associated with the secondary account”.
Accordingly, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., economic practices and/or using rules, resulting in recitation of abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., a system comprising an application server device comprising one or more processors including instructions, mobile application, user device(s), processing server computer, and digital, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claim improves upon the recited system’s component(s) individually or in combination individually or in combination.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer component(s).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 further expand on the abstract idea. The additional elements of recipient that is one of mobile application stored on the user device or an electronic device in claim 7 and user interface(s)/GUI in claims 9 and 11 are recited at a high-level generality and under BRI representing no more than computer or instructions to implement the abstract idea or use of the computer to perform the abstract. There is no indication that the claim improves upon the computer system. These additional elements individually and in combination does not provide inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150052064 A1 (“Karpenko”).
Per claims 1-9 and 11-12, Karpenko discloses a system comprising: an application server device comprising one or more processors, and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the application server device to manage an mobile application on a user device of a secondary user (abstract: mobile payment application that initiates payment transaction with a transaction processor server computer; [0049]; [0066]).
Karpenko does not particularly teach the transaction application as recited in the claim(s), however, the functionality of the transaction application does not affect the recited system, i.e., server device structurally nor functionally.
As per claim 13, Karpenko discloses that the system further comprises the user device (see Fig. 1, mobile device 120). Furthermore, the functionality of the transaction application is not particularly tied to the user device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12112334 B2 in view of “Karpenko”.
Per claim 1:
Instant Claim
US 12112334 B2
1. A system comprising:
Claim 1: A method comprising:
an application server device comprising one or more processors, and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the application server device to:
receive, from a processing server computer via the application server device, a digital token for a digital secondary account linked to a primary account of a primary user, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a plurality of protocols indicating transactions that can be authorized at a particular status associated with the digital secondary account;
receiving, at a transaction application stored on a user device of a secondary user from a server computer, a digital token for a digital secondary account linked to a primary account of a primary user, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a number of protocols indicating transactions that can be authorized at a particular status associated with the digital secondary account, wherein the transaction application is managed by a remote application server;
provision, at the transaction application, the digital token for the digital secondary account to be stored on the user device;
provisioning, at the transaction application, the digital token for the digital secondary account to be stored on the user device;
transmit an itinerary associated with the digital secondary account via the application server device to the processing server computer via the application server device, wherein the itinerary indicates a plurality of statuses associated with the digital secondary account during specified periods of time;
transmitting, by the transaction application, an itinerary associated with the digital secondary account to the server computer, wherein the itinerary indicates a plurality of statuses associated with the digital secondary account during specified periods of time;
provide the digital token for the digital secondary account to a recipient via the application server device for conducting a transaction having a transaction amount;
providing, by the transaction application, the digital token for the digital secondary account to a recipient for conducting a transaction having a transaction amount;
receive, from the processing server computer via the application server device, a message indicating that the digital token for the digital secondary account is invalid for a first portion of the transaction amount based on the itinerary associated with the digital secondary account, wherein the first portion exceeds a threshold associated with the digital secondary account; and
receiving, by the transaction application from the server computer, a message indicating that the digital token for the digital secondary account is invalid for a first portion of the transaction amount based on the itinerary associated with the digital secondary account, wherein the first portion exceeds a threshold associated with the digital secondary account;
transmit, via the application server device, a request to adjust at least one of the plurality of protocols to a user device of the primary user, wherein the plurality of protocols is adjustable by the primary user on the application server device; and
transmitting, by the transaction application via the remote application server managing the transaction application, the request to adjust the at least one of the number of protocols to a user device of the primary user, wherein the number of protocols is adjustable by the primary user on the remote application server;
complete the transaction by providing payment credentials comprised of the digital token, wherein the transaction is processed using at least a personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user.
completing, by the transaction application, the transaction by providing payment credentials comprised of the digital token, wherein the transaction is processed using multiple accounts associated with multiple people including the personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user.
‘334 does not teach a server device comprising one or more processors, and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server device to support the transaction application. However, Karpenko the server device comprising one or more processors, and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server device to support the transaction application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the server device as described in Karpenko to ‘334 in order to obtain updates for the account information (see [0051]).
Instant Claim
US 12112334 B2
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile application is configured to:
display a plurality of accounts associated with the secondary user, the plurality of accounts including the digital secondary account, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a first project, wherein at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with a second project;
displaying, by the transaction application, a plurality of accounts associated with the secondary user, the plurality of accounts including the digital secondary account (claim 2), wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a first project, wherein at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with a second project (claim 3)
receive a user input selecting the digital secondary account; and
receiving, by the transaction application, a user input selecting the digital secondary account (claim 2); and
provide the digital token to the recipient after receiving the selection of the digital secondary account.
providing, by the transaction application, the digital token for the digital secondary account to the recipient after receiving the selection of the digital secondary account (claim 2).
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a first project, wherein at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with a second project.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the digital secondary account is associated with a first project, wherein at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with a second project.
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with the primary account of the primary user.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with the primary account of the primary user.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with a primary account of a different primary user.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the at least one of the plurality of accounts is associated with a primary account of a different primary user.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the digital secondary account is invalid outside the specified periods of time as indicated in the itinerary.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the primary account is valid and the digital secondary account is invalid outside the specified periods of time as indicated in the itinerary.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the recipient is one of a mobile application stored on the user device, or an electronic device.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the recipient is a mobile application stored on the user device. 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the recipient is an electronic device.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile application is configured to: receive a user input to display attributes associated with a project assigned to the digital secondary account, wherein the attributes include limits associated with the digital secondary account, policies associated with the digital secondary account, a balance of the digital secondary account.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the transaction application, a user input to display one or more attributes associated with a project assigned to the digital secondary account. 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the one or more attributes include one or more of limits associated with the digital secondary account, policies associated with the digital secondary account, a balance of the digital secondary account.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile application is configured to:
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieve a spending limit associated with the digital secondary account;
displaying, by the transaction application, a user interface for requesting a spending limit increase from the primary user; and
provide the spending limit associated with the digital secondary account to the secondary user;
displaying, by the transaction application, a user interface for requesting a spending limit increase from the primary user; and
display a user interface for requesting a spending limit increase from the primary user; and
displaying, by the transaction application, a user interface for requesting a spending limit increase from the primary user; and
transmit a message to the user device of the primary user requesting the spending limit increase.
transmitting, by the transaction application, a message to the user device of the primary user requesting the spending limit increase.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the mobile application is configured to:
Claim 1:
display a first graphical user interface indicating that the first portion of the transaction amount is to be processed using the personal account of the secondary user;
displaying, by the transaction application, a first graphical user interface indicating that the first portion of the transaction amount is to be processed using a personal account of the secondary user
display a second graphical user interface for generating a request to adjust at least one of the plurality of protocols;
displaying, by the transaction application, a second graphical user interface for generating a request to adjust at least one of the number of protocols;
receive, via the second graphical user interface, a numeric input for an increase to the threshold associated with the digital secondary account and a text input providing context for the request; and
receiving, by the transaction application via the second graphical user interface, a numeric input for an increase to the threshold associated with the digital secondary account and a text input providing context for the request;
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the mobile application is configured to:
transmit one of a first message to the processing server computer to process the first portion of the transaction amount using a personal account of the secondary user, or a second message to a user device of the primary user to request authorization for using the digital secondary account to process the first portion of the transaction.
completing, by the transaction application, the transaction by providing payment credentials comprised of the digital token, wherein the transaction is processed using multiple accounts associated with multiple people including the personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user (claim 1)
13. The system of claim 1, further comprising the user device of the secondary user.
receiving, at a transaction application stored on a user device of a secondary user from a server computer (claim 1)
Response to the Argument(s)
101
The applicant asserts that the features describing provisioning a digital token (i.e., virtual card identifier) for a digital account on a user device constitutes a technical improvement (see page 8 of the Amendment). The examiner respectfully disagrees in that the provisioning of a card identifier is an abstract idea. As the action identifies above in the 101 section, issuance of a custodian account that is linked to an employer account and allowing the employer to establish and adjust rules on the use of the custodian payment account used by an employee is an abstract idea, i.e., certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., financial practice and using rules. The splitting of a transaction using a primary account of the employee and the account of the employer on a transaction that exceed amount that has been set by the employer is also an abstract idea. The additional elements that have been identified in the 101 section above merely serve as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The applicant asserts that digital token is an additional element which allows the transaction to be processed by using multiple accounts associated with multiple people including the personal account of the secondary user and the primary account of the primary user, and thereby renders the applicant’s claims eligible under 101 (see page 9 of the Amendment). The examiner respectfully disagrees in that the only additional element found in “digital token” is “digital”, particularly that the token which is an identifier of the secondary account (i.e., custodian account). The term “digital” merely describe that the custodian account is in a digital form, i.e., computer readable form. The addition of element of digital merely serves as mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The applicant further asserts that the amended claim 1 is not well understood, routine and/or conventional activities previously known to the industry. In response, the well understood, routine and/or conventional activities are not the basis of the rejection.
112
The claim continues to be rejected under 112(b) as the claim does not illuminate the particular function of the application server device rather hides the function in its claim construction. For example, the only positive recitation of the application server device is to manage the mobile application. The claim does not tie the recited functions of the mobile application to the managing function of the application server device.
103
The applicant’s argument is based on claimed limitations that is not further limiting of the system, particularly of the application server device as claimed in claim 1.
Double Patenting Rejections
The claims remain rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting.
For these reasons, the examiner maintains the rejections.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10445739 B1 discloses a mobile wallet system allows for a master wallet associated with a primary account holder to provide limited access to an account of the primary account holder to secondary users. The primary account holder can limit a secondary user's level of access to the funds in the account by establishing spending rules and limits for each secondary user. The rules and limits restrict the secondary users' abilities to spend funds in the account. The rule and limit types include spending limits, types of goods and services restrictions, store specific restrictions, purpose of purchase rules, purchase timing rules, geographic restrictions, group purchase rules;
US 8401904 B1 discloses features to be used in a proxy card payment system include a real-time request to override a declined transaction or to select a different financial account and the insertion of user identification information into the transaction approval message sent to the merchant. A payment request is forwarded to the payment system, which maintains the proxy card account and determines whether the transaction violates a user-defined rule. If the transaction is declined by the issuer that maintains the financial account, or the payment system for violation of a user-defined rule, the payment system sends a real-time message to the user. The user is prompted to override the rule causing the transaction to be declined or to select a new account to process the transaction. Once the payment system receives authorization for the transaction, it inserts the user identification information in an approval message before transmitting the approval to the merchant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698