DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 04/30/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 16-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted in claim 13 “not treating algorithms as per se unpatentable and additional elements as mere generic computer components without adequate explanation and/or white eschewing precedents such as Enfish.” However, there is no parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence, the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database), whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea.
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).
In Bilski and in Alice, the specific features of the claimed method/system did not change the fact that the claims were drawn to an abstract idea. This interpretation of this abstract idea is based in light of the Alice decision and the updates in the MPEP. Hence the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Applicant asserted “the claims include recitations that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application that centralizes and streamlines digital payment accounts and improves technical security aspects of processing electronic transactions by way of a centralized UWLA that avoids using sensitive account number data and instead uses a unique identifier for electronic transactions . . .”. But, using unique identifier to cover up account number data is not an improvement to technology. It is leveraging the use of existing technology to perform a transaction in a secured way. Hence, the limitations 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).
In Step 2B Prong Two, the applicant asserted in page 22 “conventional techniques are unable to unify aspects of both electronic security and intelligent (e.g., AI-based) account data processing in a centralized and streamlined manner. However, the use of AI is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103-rejection arguments, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The cited references still disclose the amendment. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of analyzing transaction data using AI as taught by Size with the invention disclosed by Sarin to help predicting a plurality of trends associated with the performance of the action and the provision based on a behavior pattern (par. [0036]). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
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 directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12 and 16 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, A unified wallet link account (UWLA) computer system for providing a secure and intelligent unified wallet link account, the UWLA computer system comprising: at least one memory device for storing data; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device, the at least one processor programmed to: generate a unified wallet link account (UWLA) for a user based on user information, the user being an account holder of the Wagnerite a unique identifier associated with the UWLA; electronically link the UWLA to (i) one or more funding accounts of the user, and (ii) one or more external payment services using the unique identifier, wherein transactions made via the UWLA over a payment processing network use the unique identifier for processing of the transactions instead of account numbers of the one or more funding accounts to protect the account numbers from exposure over the payment processing network; analyze, via one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models associated with the UWLA, transaction data associated with the user and the one or more funding accounts; determine, based on an output of the one or more Al models, one or more spending patterns of the user from the analyzed transaction data; determine, based on the one or more spending patterns, input parameters for the UWLA; electronically fund the UWLA via the one or more funding accounts based on the determined input parameters; and periodically electronically monitor a balance of the UWLA such that a determination that the balance fails to satisfy a threshold amount associated with the input parameters causes the balance to be electronically reloaded via funds from the one or more funding accounts to satisfy the threshold amount.. These limitations are directed to funding a digital account or wallet– business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a unified wallet link account computer system, at least one memory device, at least one processor, a unique identifier, one or more artificial intelligence models environment recited at a high-level of generality (generating, linking, determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to compose a risk profile and purchase insurance based on such risk for a property is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2, 13 and 17 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite determining spending and fraud parameters and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite building a profile and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 4 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite referring to information contained in the output and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 5 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite referring to information contained int the output of the models and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 6, 14 and 18 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite updating the account balance and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 7 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a unique identifier associated with the real-time payment service and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 8 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite initiating an electronic transfer of funds from one account to fund the transaction and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 9 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite referring to information contained within the output and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 10 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a unique identifier and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 11, 15 and 20 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite accessing the card and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 19 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a unique identifier associated with the real-time payment service and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a UWL computer system, a processor) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin, (US 2022/0067703 A1) in view of Size et al. (US 2025/0328628 A1).
Claims 1, 12 and 16 are grouped together. Sarin teaches: A unified wallet link account (UWLA) computer system for providing a secure and intelligent unified wallet link account, the UWLA computer system comprising: at least one memory device for storing data (Sarin, see at least par. [0085]) The cited portion discloses processor and memory; generate a unique identifier associated with the UWLA (Sarin, see at least par. [0019] “In some embodiments, the token management system may modify the characteristics of a token by changing the associated data (e.g., metadata) of the token. For example, each token that is generated and stored on the mobile device may be associated with metadata. The associated metadata may indicate a token identifier of the token, one or more funding account identifiers of one or more funding accounts that are associated with the tokens, one or more restrictions specifying conditions in which the token may be used, a device identifier of the mobile device, and other information related to the token . . .”) A token identifier corresponds to a unique identifier which associates with the account;
electronically link the UWLA to (i) one or more funding accounts of the user (see at least par. [0017] “. . . a token management system may facilitate sharing of tokens among different funding accounts linked to a digital wallet application to improve the computer resource efficiency of the mobile device. In some embodiments, when an indication of adding a first funding account to the digital wallet application is received, the token management system may determine whether a set of tokens have already been issued and stored on the mobile device for another related funding account (e.g., a second funding account) . . .”) The funding account is linked to a mobile wallet, and (ii) one or more external payment services using the unique identifier, (see at least par. [0017] “. . . For example, the first funding account may be associated with a user and with a first payment service provider while the second funding account may be associated with the same user but with a second payment service provider. The token management system may determine that the first funding account and the second funding account are related based on a relationship between the first payment service provider and the second service provider (e.g., a partnership relationship, an affiliation relationship, etc.) . . .”);
determine, based on an output of the one or more AI models, one or more spending patterns of the user from the analyzed transaction data (Sarin, see at least par. [0026] “. . . In some embodiments, the token management system may use a machine learning model that is trained based on past transaction conducted through the first funding account to determine the risk of the electronic transaction request. When the risk is below a threshold, the token management system may modify the restrictions for the token in association with the first funding account, such that the electronic transaction request may be processed using the token . . .”) The machine learning model studies past transaction data ;
determine, based on the one or more spending patterns, input parameters for the UWLA (Sarin, see at least par. [0050] “. . . The restriction module 208 may determine a set of restrictions related to transaction attributes such as a maximum amount, a geographical location, a time of day, etc. based on the transaction history. For example, the restriction module 208 may determine a maximum amount restriction for the funding account 312 based on most of the past transactions (e.g., over a pre-determined threshold such as 90%, 95%, etc.) in the transaction history have a transaction amount below a maximum amount value . . .”) The cited portion discloses input parameters such as maximum amount, time of day based on past transactions ;
and electronically fund the UWLA via the one or more funding accounts based on the determined input parameters (Sarin, see at least par. [0075] “. . . The process 600 begins by receiving (at step 605) a request for linking a funding account to a digital wallet application of a device. For example, the digital wallet application 118 may receive a request to link a funding account (e.g., the funding account 312, the funding account 314, etc.) to the digital wallet application 118 via the interface 302. The process 600 then determines (at step 610) whether existing tokens on the device are associated with a related funding account and if there is no existing token associated with a related funding account, the process 600 generates (at step 615) new tokens. For example, the token manager 202 may access the table 402 stored on the user device 110 to determine whether any existing tokens on the user device 110 are associated with a related funding account. When the request is to link the funding account 312 to the digital wallet application 118, the token manager 202 may determine that no other funding account is linked to the digital wallet application 118. The digital wallet application 118 may then request the TSP server 190 to generate a new batch of tokens (e.g., 10 tokens) for the funding account 312 based on the funding account data associated with the funding account 312.”).
and periodically electronically monitor a balance of the UWLA such that a determination that the balance fails to satisfy a threshold amount associated with the input parameters causes the balance to be electronically reloaded via funds from the one or more funding accounts to satisfy the threshold amount (see par. [0071] “] When the digital wallet application 118 determines that the number of tokens associated with a particular funding account (e.g., the funding account 312, the funding account 314, etc.) stored on the user device 110 is below a threshold (e.g., less than 1, less than 2, etc.), the digital wallet application may request the TSP server 190 to generate a new batch of tokens (e.g., tokens 324). The TSP server 190 may generate a new batch of tokens 324 (e.g., 10, 20, 50, etc.) for the particular funding account, and may transmit the new batch of tokens 324 to the user device 110.”) When the amount, or token is below a threshold, a new batch of token is reloaded or transferred to user device.
Sarin does not disclose the following; however Size teaches:
and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device, the at least one processor programmed to: generate a unified wallet link account (UWLA) for a user based on user information, the user being an account holder of the UWLA (Size et al. (US 2025/0328628 A1), see at least par. [0041] “In step 308, the illustrative program engine 104 may update at least one database based on the information associated with the additional user. In some embodiments, the illustrative program engine 104 may update the at least one database based on the rules and limitation information by generated an electronic message that includes a link structured for the additional authorized user to download on a separate computing device. This separate computing device associated with the additional authorized user may include a second instance of the mobile wallet application . . .”) The cited portion discloses a link to a mobile wallet app for an authorized user;
wherein transactions made via the UWLA over a payment processing network use the unique identifier for processing of the transactions instead of account numbers of the one or more funding accounts to protect the account numbers from exposure over the payment processing network (Size, see at least par. [0023] “ generate a provision utilizing the unique schema-specific identifier to perform the particular action associated with the computing device 102. The provision may refer to a dynamic authentication to perform the particular action based on the controls of the particular user. The unique schema-specific identifier may refer to a plurality of virtual card numbers (“VCNs”) generated by the exemplary unique identifier generator module 118. The particular action may refer to a transfer of data from the account associated with the particular user to an external data source. For example, the particular action may refer to a financial transaction utilizing the unique schema-specific identifier by the user (i.e., an authorized user) associated with the account of the particular user. In some embodiments, the exemplary unique identifier generator module 118 may receive a permission from the user of a plurality of users to utilize a particular service associated with the computing device”)
analyze, via one or more an artificial intelligence (AI) models associated with the UWLA, transaction data associated with the user and the one or more funding accounts (Size, see at least par. [0036] “In some embodiments, the exemplary unique identifier generator module 118 may utilize an artificial intelligence module 124 to predict a plurality of trends associated with the performance of the action and the provision based on a behavior pattern associated with the authorized user and/or the primary user. The plurality of trends may refer to a past behavior associated with previous data transfers associated with the authorized user and the account of the primary user . . .”);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of analyzing transaction data using AI as taught by Size with the invention disclosed by Sarin to help predicting a plurality of trends associated with the performance of the action and the provision based on a behavior pattern (par. [0036]). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 2, 13 and 17 are grouped together. Claim 2, for instance, is disclosed: Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 1. Sarin further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: determine, via the one or more AI models, and based at least on one or more spending parameters associated with the determined one or more spending patterns, fraud parameters for the UWLA; and analyze, via the one or more AI models and the determined fraud parameters, one or more transactions of the user for fraud (Sarin, see at least par. [0074] “. . . For example, when it is detected that the risk of the funding account 314 has increased to a value above a threshold (e.g., due to recent fraudulent activities associated with the funding account 314), the token manager 202 may reduce the number of tokens stored on the user device 110 associated with the funding account 314 (or even eliminate all tokens associated with the funding account 314).”).
Claims 6, 14 and 18 are grouped together. Claim 6, for instance, is disclosed: Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 1. Sarin further teaches: wherein the one or more external services includes at least one of a real-time payment service and a digital wallet service (Sarin, par. [0037] “ The digital wallet server 180, in one embodiment, may be maintained by a digital wallet service provider for providing digital wallet services. The digital wallet server 180 may provide (e.g., host) the digital wallet application 118 to be downloaded onto mobile devices such as the user device 110. The digital wallet server 180 may also facilitate electronic payment transactions in response to electronic payment transaction requests submitted through the digital wallet application 118.”).
Claims 7 and 19 are grouped together. Claim 7 is disclosed: Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 6. Furthermore, Sarin teaches: wherein the unique identifier is generated in conjunction with a provider of the real-time payment service, and the at least one processor is further programmed to: determine that a security event involving the unique identifier has occurred (Sarin, see at least par. [0019] “In some embodiments, the token management system may modify the characteristics of a token by changing the associated data (e.g., metadata) of the token. For example, each token that is generated and stored on the mobile device may be associated with metadata. The associated metadata may indicate a token identifier of the token, one or more funding account identifiers of one or more funding accounts that are associated with the tokens, one or more restrictions specifying conditions in which the token may be used, a device identifier of the mobile device, and other information related to the token . . .”) A token identifier corresponds to a unique identifier which associates with the account;; electronically prevent access to the one or more external payment services at the UWLA level; cause a new unique identifier to be generated; electronically link the new unique identifier to the one or more external payment services; electronically restore access to the one or more external payment services at the UWLA level. (Sarin, see at least par. [0048] “ Upon receiving the notification, the tenancy management module 206 may determine whether another funding account that is related to the funding account 312 has already been linked to the digital wallet application 118. In some embodiments, the tenancy management module 206 may generate a data structure (e.g., a blockchain, a data record, a database, etc.) for each digital wallet application installed on different devices. Each time a funding account is linked to a digital wallet application, the tenancy management module 206 may generate a new data container (e.g., a new block, a new data record, etc.) that includes the funding account data of the funding account and may add the new data container to the data structure corresponding to the digital wallet application . . .”) A new data structure is generated for a new container.
Claim 8 is disclosed: Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 1. Furthermore, Sarin teaches: wherein the one or more funding accounts of the user includes one or more bank accounts of the user, and the at least one processor is further programmed to: initiate an electronic transfer of funds from the one or more bank accounts to electronically fund the UWLA based on the determined input parameters (Sarin, see at least par. [0031] “. . . The user 140 may link one or more funding accounts (e.g., a credit card account, a bank account, a payment service provider account, gift cards, etc.) to the digital wallet application 118. After linking the funding accounts to the digital wallet application 118, the user 140 may use the digital wallet application 118 to facilitate electronic payments with other entities, such as the merchant server 120 . . .”).
Claim 9 is disclosed. Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 8. Furthermore, Sarin teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: refer to information contained within the output of the one or more AI models to determine the input parameters (Sarin, see at least par. [0050] “. . . The restriction module 208 may determine a set of restrictions related to transaction attributes such as a maximum amount, a geographical location, a time of day, etc. based on the transaction history. For example, the restriction module 208 may determine a maximum amount restriction for the funding account 312 based on most of the past transactions (e.g., over a pre-determined threshold such as 90%, 95%, etc.) in the transaction history have a transaction amount below a maximum amount value . . .”) The cited portion discloses input parameters such as maximum amount, time of day based on past transactions.
Claim 10 is disclosed. Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 1. Sarin further teaches: wherein the UWLA is isolated from the one or more funding accounts at least by the unique identifier (Sarin, par. [0033]) the cited portion discloses that only a unique identifier is associated with a user with a particular account.
Claims 11, 15 and 20 are grouped together. Claim 11, for instance, is disclosed: Sarin in view of Size teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 1. Sarin further teaches: wherein the input parameters include at least a timing parameter and a value parameter, and the electronic funding of the UWLA includes automatically electronically funding the UWLA with an amount based on at least one of the timing parameter and the value parameter (see at least par. [0040] “. . . . As such, the payment processing application settles indebtedness between a user and a merchant, wherein accounts may be directly and/or automatically debited and/or credited of monetary funds in a manner as accepted by the banking industry . . .”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin, (US 2022/0067703 A1) in view of Size et al. (US 2025/0328628 A1) in further view of Zoldi et al. (US 2009/0222308 A1).
Claim 3 is disclosed. Sarin in view of Size in further view of Zoldi teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 2. However, Zoldi teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: build, in association with the UWLA, (i) a spend profile for the user based on the one or more spending parameters, and (ii) a fraud profile for the user based on the determined fraud parameters (Zoldi et al. (US 2009/0222308 A1), see at least par. [0025] “. . . The transaction system, 562, will process credit line utilization requests (purchases/funds transfer), customer contacts, payments, credit line requests, customer information updates, and the like. Once earmarked as potentially subject to first party fraud abuse in the origination stage (or not in other instantiations), the second model 520 profiles the transactions associated with the account and the current transaction request 560 input to the transaction system portion 562 for the creation of first party fraud variables used in the second model 520 . . . This score based on transaction profile variables from the customer profile and one or more account master profiles is input to the transaction system portion 562. A decision 570 is made with respect to the transaction request based on the various pre-booked and post-booked behaviors, and the associated fraud score. Of course, the transaction system portion 562 may be reviewed manually which results in a case being generated to be worked within a case management system that aggregates all transaction history associated with the customer and their line of credit. In other embodiments, the first party fraud scores, reason codes associated with the model scores, and portions of the transaction information will be sent to an account management system to apply account management strategies to accounts/customers that are suspected of committing first party fraud . . .”) The system constructs or builds the spend profile associated with an user account as well as the fraud scores.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of constructing a profile of an user as taught by Zoldi with the invention disclosed by Sarin in view of Size to help present profiles with transaction history and potential fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin, (US 2022/0067703 A1) in view of Size et al. (US 2025/0328628 A1) in further view of Zoldi et al. (US 2009/0222308 A1) in further view of Hill et al. (US 2024/0370940 A1).
Claim 4. Sarin in view of Size in further view of Zoldi teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 3. However, Hill teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: refer to information contained in the output of the one or more AI models to build each of the spend profile and the fraud profile (Hill et al. (US 2024/0370940 A1), see at least par. [0087] “. . . the reporting engine 140 may generate a graphical representation 760 of previous transactions received at step 405, as depicted in FIG. 7B. The graphical representation 760 may include, for example, a report and/or listing of various expenses associated with an account of the user profile 505 . . .” & see at least par. [0066] “. . . The reporting engine 140 may use one or more artificial intelligence and machine learning models to recognize images, icons, and other features of the invoice (e.g., logos of vendors, bar codes, QR codes, etc.) . . .” & see at least par. [0050] “. . . For example, the machine learning models may be trained to predict when certain dates, times, locations, or other parameters may result in meeting an alert criteria even when various thresholds are not met (e.g., the machine learning models may be trained to determine that prices are higher than average during certain holidays, that certain locations have less availability during certain seasons, etc.). The machine learning models may additionally or alternatively be trained to predict when certain thresholds should be overridden due to other factors . . .”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of referring to the information for constructing profile as taught by Hill with the invention disclosed by Sarin in view of Size in further view of Zoldi to help present profiles with transaction history and potential fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 5. Sarin in view of Size in further view of Zoldi teaches: A UWLA computer system in accordance with Claim 4. However, Hill teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: refer to information contained within the spend profile to electronically fund the UWLA (Hill, see at least par. [0051] “. . . The reporting engine 140 may use one or more machine learning models that determine that prices of transportation and food are typically higher during the end of December than normal. The reporting engine 140 may then determine that an alert criteria is met based on the machine learning models. As another example, the reporting engine 140 may compare a plurality of lodging travel data with one another and with the stored travel information. The reporting engine 140 may determine that a first lodging merchant offers a lower price than a second lodging merchant. The reporting engine 140 may determine, based on the comparison with stored travel information, that the first lodging merchant is below a threshold value and therefore does not meet an alert criteria. However, the reporting engine 140 may determine, based on the machine learning models, that a potential cost of transportation (e.g., rental car, taxicab, Uber, Lyft, etc.) to the first lodging merchant exceeds a savings amount of choosing the second lodging merchant. The reporting engine 140 may determine an alert criteria is met based on the machine learning models . . .” & see at least par. [0056] “. . . . For example, the reporting engine 140 may cause the provider computing system 110 to store the invoice data in the expense database 120 with an indication (e.g., unique identifier) to prevent a transfer of funds to a user account for reimbursement and/or an indication to transmit the invoice data to the second customer device 160 responsive to receiving an input to the second customer device 160 indicating a selection to review the invoice data . . .” ) The rule engine refers to the profile for spending fund .
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of referring to the information for constructing profile as taught by Hill with the invention disclosed by Sarin in view of Size in further view of Zoldi to help present profiles with transaction history and potential fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights