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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 04/14/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the response to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted that “the [amended limitation] which specifies the same user who initiates the transaction also provides the authorization on their own device, as a specific technical implementation distinct from generic business methods” & “[applicant] submits that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application” (p.9). However, in contrast to the assertion that “[the limitations] recite specific technical architecture where the mobile device communicates with a transaction service via a banking application”, the added limitation only leverages the use of existing technology to set up a preset spending limit rather than adding to a technical improvement. Hence, Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under step 2B Prong Two, the idea is not significantly more because having an authorization stage for spending to be approved is a business idea of fraud prevention. Hence, Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The cited references disclose the amended limitations. The assertion “neither Rendheer nor Goodsitt discloses or suggests to ‘transmit, to the transaction service, an authorization during processing of the transaction to apply a spending limit adjustment’ as recited in claim 1”. However, per reviewing Goodsitt, the reference discloses different method authorize the spending limit adjustment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by receiving an authorization input to increase preset limit as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
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, or a product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 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. 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 and 10 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites a mobile device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: obtain receive, from a transaction service via a banking application on the mobile device, an indication that a purchase amount of a transaction exceeds a preset spending limit for a payment method used for the transaction; indicate that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit; receive, from a user of the mobile device who initiated the transaction, an authorization input during processing of the transaction to increase the preset spending limit; [[and]] transmit, to the transaction service, an authorization during processing of the transaction to apply a spending limit adjustment; and allow the transaction to complete uninterrupted based at least in part on the authorization input to increase the preset spending limit.. The limitations are directed to commercial interactions (modifying the spending limit for the card – business relations). Hence, they fall within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites A mobile device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: obtain receive, from a transaction service via a banking application on the mobile device, an indication that a purchase amount of a transaction exceeds a preset spending limit for a payment method used for the transaction; indicate that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit; determine at least one of an alternate payment mode of the payment method has a higher preset spending limit, or a different payment method has the higher preset spending limit; indicate one of the alternate payment mode of the payment method or the different payment method is available to allow the transaction to complete uninterrupted; and transmit, to the transaction service, an authorization during processing of the transaction to apply a spending limit adjustment based on the alternate payment mode or the different payment method. The limitations are directed to commercial interactions (modifying the spending limit for the card – business relations). Hence, they fall within the “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, an ATM, a financial institution, a currency exchange system, a mobile app to perform receiving, processing. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (establishing, determining, requesting) 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.
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 1,10, 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are merely additional elements 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). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). 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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) inputting secured information to initiate transfer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as the mobile application, users, a country, financial institutions, a currency) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving a selectable input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as one processor, a mobile device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining an acceptable purchase amount. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining the indication that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) indicating that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) increasing the spending limit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) reverting an increase of the preset spending limit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) one of a digital banking. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a point of sale transaction. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a digital banking payment method. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a digital banking payment method. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mobile device, a processor, a user interface) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rendheer (US 2023/0169512 A1) in view of Goodsitt et al. (US 2025/0156845 A1).
Claims 1 and 10 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, is disclosed: Rendheer teaches: A mobile device, comprising: at least one memory (Rendheer, see at least par. [0007] “. . . The system may include one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors is configured to cause the system to perform the steps of a method . . .”);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: receive, from a transaction service via a banking application on the mobile device, an indication that a purchase amount of a transaction exceeds a preset spending limit for a payment method used for the transaction (Rendheer, Fig. 3 – 306, see at least par. [0065] “The following example use case describe examples of a use of systems and methods for setting spending limits for secondary credit account users. These example use cases are intended solely for explanatory purposes and not for limitation. In one case, a primary user may wish to set a spending limit for a secondary user, who may be, for example, his child. The primary account holder may log into an application on his customer device, which may display a graphical user interface that allows the primary user to set spending limitations associated with the secondary account user. For example, the parent may set a maximum daily spend limitation for the secondary user of $100. The child may wish to purchase a college textbook for $110. When the child attempts to pay for the college textbook with the credit account, the system may identify that the transaction exceeds the spending limit . . .”) Interpretation: the system indicates that a purchase amount/transaction amount exceeds a spending limit;
indicate that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “. . . , the child may wish to buy a college textbook, but the price may be $150. In this situation, the transaction may be automatically rejected because the transaction exceeds the spending limitation by more than the predetermined threshold (e.g., 10%). However, in this case, the primary account holder may receive a notification, in real time, on the user device which indicates the transaction of the secondary user was denied. The primary account user may wish to authorize the transaction”);
and allow the transaction to complete uninterrupted based at least in part on the authorization input to increase the preset spending limit (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “. . . The primary account user may wish to authorize the transaction. Accordingly, the primary account user may provide an input to the customer device associated with a manual spending limitation override. The manual spending limitation override may allow the secondary user to complete the transaction. Similarly, a customer device associated with the secondary user may provide a notification to the secondary use that a manual spending limitation override has been authorized for the transaction, which allows the secondary user to attempt the transaction again, knowing it will now be authorized. Additionally, the manual override provided by the primary account user will be used by the system to update the one or more predictive model systems so that in the future, such a transaction may be automatically authorized by the transaction management system.”) the spending limit, once overridden, is able to complete the transaction without any interruption.
Rendheer does not teach the following; however, Goodsitt teaches:
receive, from a user of the mobile device who initiated the transaction, an authorization input during processing of the transaction to increase the preset spending limit (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0164] “. . . The mobile application generates a new graphical user interface in response to receiving Charlie's instructions and shows that Anna's current limit is $100, but the limit could be increased to $500 in all categories if a single tap is completed (blocks 608, 610).” & par. [0165] “. . . Anna's credit card sends telemetry and identity information to Charlie's phone via near field communication (NFC). Charlie's phone uses the identity information to confirm that Anna's card is part of the same credit card account. Charlie's phone also compares the telemetry from Anna's credit card to the telemetry from Charlie's phone. Charlie's phone compares determines that the gesture performed corresponded to the single tap in any orientation chosen by Charlie earlier (block 614). Therefore, Charlie's phone transmits the new authorization conditions and authorization limitations to Anna's card via NFC (block 616). Anna's card can now be used for purchases up to $500 at any merchant, as assigned by Charlie earlier.”) The card is authorized to increase the preset spending limit from $100 to $500;
transmit, to the transaction service, an authorization during processing of the transaction to apply a spending limit adjustment (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0095] “As determined by referencing the account settings (e.g., as part of authorization system 320), certain transactions using one of the cards (e.g., the second user card 404 or vice versa) may require authorization from the other card (e.g., the primary user card 402). This authorization may come from the gesture of the second card relative to the first card, such as a tap or a swipe. This gesture may indicate that the second user is giving permission to the first user to purchase the item. The gesture action may have a variety of different meanings. For example, without a first card tap, the second card may have a limit of $2,000, but if the first card is tapped to the second card, then the limit of the second card is $5,000 for a certain time period (e.g., one day or one month).”) Cited portion discloses using tapping to allow the secondary card to make a preset limit payment .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by receiving an authorization input to increase preset limit as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 17 is disclosed. Rendheer teaches: A mobile device, comprising: at least one memory (Rendheer, see at least par. [0007] “. . . The system may include one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors is configured to cause the system to perform the steps of a method . . .”);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: receive, from a transaction service via a banking application on the mobile device, an indication that a purchase amount of a transaction exceeds a preset spending limit for a payment method used for the transaction (Rendheer, Fig. 3 – 306, see at least par. [0065] “The following example use case describe examples of a use of systems and methods for setting spending limits for secondary credit account users. These example use cases are intended solely for explanatory purposes and not for limitation. In one case, a primary user may wish to set a spending limit for a secondary user, who may be, for example, his child. The primary account holder may log into an application on his customer device, which may display a graphical user interface that allows the primary user to set spending limitations associated with the secondary account user. For example, the parent may set a maximum daily spend limitation for the secondary user of $100. The child may wish to purchase a college textbook for $110. When the child attempts to pay for the college textbook with the credit account, the system may identify that the transaction exceeds the spending limit . . .”) Interpretation: the system indicates that a purchase amount/transaction amount exceeds a spending limit;
indicate that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “. . . , the child may wish to buy a college textbook, but the price may be $150. In this situation, the transaction may be automatically rejected because the transaction exceeds the spending limitation by more than the predetermined threshold (e.g., 10%). However, in this case, the primary account holder may receive a notification, in real time, on the user device which indicates the transaction of the secondary user was denied. The primary account user may wish to authorize the transaction;
and indicate one of the alternate payment mode of the payment method or the different payment method is available to allow the transaction to complete uninterrupted (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “. . . The primary account user may wish to authorize the transaction. Accordingly, the primary account user may provide an input to the customer device associated with a manual spending limitation override. The manual spending limitation override may allow the secondary user to complete the transaction . . .”) the spending limit, once overridden, is able to complete the transaction.
Rendheer does not teach the following; however, Goodsitt teaches:
determine at least one of an alternate payment mode of the payment method has a higher preset spending limit, or a different payment method has the higher preset spending limit (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0139] “. . . The graphical user interface may include options to select several different gestures associated with several different pre-selections (e.g., a tapping gesture creates a predebited virtual card for $500, but a sliding gesture creates a predebited virtual card for $1000). The graphical user interface may include options to assign meaning to other features of gestures, like counts (e.g., one tap is a virtual card for $100, two taps is a virtual card for $200), or orientation (e.g., a tap with two devices in parallel is a virtual card for $300, a perpendicular tap is $600). A gesture may include configuration options regarding an authorization for online or in-person usage of the virtual card (e.g., the card may be limited to in-person transactions only, online transactions only, or both).”) Gesture corresponds to payment mode with higher preset-limit;
and transmit, to the transaction service, an authorization during processing of the transaction to apply a spending limit adjustment based on the alternate payment mode or the different payment method (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0095] “As determined by referencing the account settings (e.g., as part of authorization system 320), certain transactions using one of the cards (e.g., the second user card 404 or vice versa) may require authorization from the other card (e.g., the primary user card 402). This authorization may come from the gesture of the second card relative to the first card, such as a tap or a swipe. This gesture may indicate that the second user is giving permission to the first user to purchase the item. The gesture action may have a variety of different meanings. For example, without a first card tap, the second card may have a limit of $2,000, but if the first card is tapped to the second card, then the limit of the second card is $5,000 for a certain time period (e.g., one day or one month).”) Cited portion discloses using tapping to allow the secondary card to make a preset limit payment .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by receiving an authorization input to increase preset limit as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 2 and 11 are grouped together. Claim 2, for instance, is disclosed: Rendheer in view of The mobile device of claim 1. Rendheer further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to one of detect that the transaction has been initiated or receive the indication that the transaction has been initiated (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “. . . When the child attempts to pay for the college textbook with the credit account, the system may identify that the transaction exceeds the spending limit . . .”) A transaction with amount exceeding the spending limit is identified or initiated.
Claims 3 and 12 are grouped together. Claim 3, for instance is disclosed: Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. However, Goodsitt teaches: wherein, to receive the authorization input, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to receive a selectable input to an interactive element that is displayed in a user interface (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0048] “. . . The user device 402 would then display the graphical user interface and receive user input to accept or decline the locking condition within a threshold period of time, which the user device 402 would transmit to the authorization system 320 for feedback to the machine learning model . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by receiving authorization input as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 4 and 13 are grouped together. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rendheer teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: determine that the purchase amount is within an acceptable increase over the preset spending limit, the acceptable increase being one of a designated amount over the preset spending limit, or within a designated percentage of the purchase amount over the preset spending limit (Rendheer, see at least par. [0045] “. . . . For example, if the transaction amount of the first transaction is for $160, but the spending limitation for the secondary user is for $150, the system may authorize the spending limitation override because the excess of the first transaction is less than 10% over the spending limitation . . .”) ; and display, in a user interface, an interactive element that is selectable as the authorization input to increase the preset spending limit, the interactive element conditionally displayed based on the purchase amount being determined within the acceptable increase (Rendheer, see at least par. [0046] “. . . In block 318, the system may generate notification providing an option for the primary user to manually approve the spending limitation override. For example, the notification may be provided to customer device 130. Customer device 130 may display a graphical user interface for the primary user to interact with, that gives the option to the primary user to manually approve the spending limitation override in real-time.”).
Claim 5 is disclosed. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rendheer further teaches: wherein, to obtain the indication that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to one of determine that the purchase amount exceeds the preset spending limit, or receive the indication that the purchase amount exceeds the preset spending limit (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “The following example use case describe examples of a use of systems and methods for setting spending limits for secondary credit account users. These example use cases are intended solely for explanatory purposes and not for limitation. In one case, a primary user may wish to set a spending limit for a secondary user, who may be, for example, his child. The primary account holder may log into an application on his customer device, which may display a graphical user interface that allows the primary user to set spending limitations associated with the secondary account user. For example, the parent may set a maximum daily spend limitation for the secondary user of $100. The child may wish to purchase a college textbook for $110. When the child attempts to pay for the college textbook with the credit account, the system may identify that the transaction exceeds the spending limit . . .”) Interpretation: the system indicates that a purchase amount/transaction amount exceeds a spending limit;.
Claims 6 and 14 are grouped together. Claim 6, for instance, is disclosed: The mobile device of claim 1. Rendheer further teaches: wherein, to indicate that the purchase amount of the transaction exceeds the preset spending limit, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display an alert on a user interface (Rendheer, par. [0067] “. . . when the first transaction exceeds the spending limitation by the predetermined threshold or greater than the predetermined threshold: automatically reject the spending limitation override; and generate, via the graphical user interface, a notification associated with the rejected spending limitation override, the notification providing an option for the primary user to manually approve the spending limitation override.”) A notification corresponds to an alert on a user device.
Claims 9 and 16 are grouped together. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. However, Goodsitt teaches: wherein the payment method used for the transaction is one of a digital banking payment method or a physical payment method (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0167] “. . . mobile application on Sarah's smartphone then presents a graphical user interface indicating that Sarah now has a virtual card for $500 that expires in 7 days and can only be used at office supply stores and shows Sarah the virtual card number, expiration date, and CVV code of the card. The mobile application on Sarah's smartphone also contacts a transaction server to charge David's account for $500. David smartphone presents him with an interactive graphical user interface notification that notifies him that his credit card account has been charged for an amount of $500. The graphical user interface also has options to view the charges on the predebited virtual card and revoke the predebited virtual card.”) The virtual card corresponds to digital payment method, and the preset spending limit corresponds to a payment mode of the digital banking payment method or the physical payment method (par. [0036] “The card activation code may be related to an application or an account on the user device (e.g., a mobile application, such as a banking application) . . .”) the banking application is linked to a bank with a preset payment mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by selecting a payment mode as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 18. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 17. Goodsitt, however, teaches: wherein a payment mode of the payment method is at least one of a point-of-sale transaction, a tap to pay transaction, a swipe to pay transaction, or an online transaction (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0109] “. . . The first graphical user interface may show many options to select, including: different gesture actions (e.g., tap, swipe), orientations as detected by gyrometer (e.g., perpendicular to card, parallel to card), position (e.g., tap from top of card, bottom of card, side of card), limit or merchant changes (e.g., dollar amount increases, decreases, merchant type allowed and disallowed), and one- or two-way authorization . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by selecting a payment mode as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 19. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 17. Goodsitt, however, teaches: wherein at least one of: the payment method is a digital banking payment method (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0167] “. . . mobile application on Sarah's smartphone then presents a graphical user interface indicating that Sarah now has a virtual card for $500 that expires in 7 days and can only be used at office supply stores and shows Sarah the virtual card number, expiration date, and CVV code of the card. The mobile application on Sarah's smartphone also contacts a transaction server to charge David's account for $500. David smartphone presents him with an interactive graphical user interface notification that notifies him that his credit card account has been charged for an amount of $500. The graphical user interface also has options to view the charges on the predebited virtual card and revoke the predebited virtual card.”) The virtual card corresponds to digital payment method, and the different payment method is a physical payment method that is available with a user of the mobile device; or the payment method is the physical payment method, and the different payment method is the digital banking payment method (par. [0036] “The card activation code may be related to an application or an account on the user device (e.g., a mobile application, such as a banking application) . . .”) the banking application is linked to a bank with a preset payment mode, or digital method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by selecting a payment mode as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 20. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 17: allow the transaction to complete based at least in part on the authorization input to switch to the digital banking payment method that is available on the mobile device (Rendheer, see at least par. [0065] “. . . The primary account user may wish to authorize the transaction. Accordingly, the primary account user may provide an input to the customer device associated with a manual spending limitation override. The manual spending limitation override may allow the secondary user to complete the transaction . . .”) the spending limit, once overridden, is able to complete the transaction. Goodsitt further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: compare transaction limits of digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device to the purchase amount of the transaction (Goodsitt, see at least par. [0106] “. . . The payment processing server may then make a determination if the transaction can be processed by comparing the transaction details to the authorization limitations.”) ; receive an authorization input during processing of the transaction to switch to a digital banking payment method as the different payment method, wherein the digital banking payment method has the higher preset spending limit Goodsitt, see at least par. [0139] “. . . The graphical user interface may include options to select several different gestures associated with several different pre-selections (e.g., a tapping gesture creates a predebited virtual card for $500, but a sliding gesture creates a predebited virtual card for $1000). The graphical user interface may include options to assign meaning to other features of gestures, like counts (e.g., one tap is a virtual card for $100, two taps is a virtual card for $200), or orientation (e.g., a tap with two devices in parallel is a virtual card for $300, a perpendicular tap is $600). A gesture may include configuration options regarding an authorization for online or in-person usage of the virtual card (e.g., the card may be limited to in-person transactions only, online transactions only, or both).”) gesture corresponds to switching to digital payment method which could increase the spending limit;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer by selecting a payment mode as taught by Goodsitt, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Goodsitt helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rendheer (US 2023/0169512 A1) in view of Goodsitt et al. (US 2025/0156845 A1) in further view of Verma et al. (US 2024/0220995 A1) .
Claim 7. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Verma, however, teaches: wherein an increase of the preset spending limit is temporary and the preset spending limit is reset after the transaction has complete (Verma et al. (US 2024/0220995 A1), see at least par. [0066] “Thereafter, at an interaction 7, online transaction processor 130 may dynamically adjust the available spending limit and/or interface element and show a remaining balance or availability of the spending limit in the application on client device 110. Further, there may be an option for credit reset and/or adjustment after an initial offer and/or usage of credit.”) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer in view of Goodsitt by increasing preset limit as taught by Verma, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Verma helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rendheer (US 2023/0169512 A1) in view of Goodsitt et al. (US 2025/0156845 A1) in further view of Fisher et al. (US 2021/0090084 A1).
Claims 8 and 15 are grouped together. Rendheer in view of Goodsitt teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. However, Fisher teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to revert an increase of the preset spending limit after the transaction is complete (Fisher et al. (US 2021/0090084 A1), see at least par. [0082] “. . . The user may respond that it could be lost, but then they go into online banking (which the client application 160 is a part of) to customize what they want to happen, taking into account their plans for the next few days. At which point, the card management system 190 may generate and provide some option that the user selects which says “these are temporary settings for the next X days. If you don't hear from me in X days, or if the on-board card technology does not determine that the card has been found before then, then deactivate the card, send me a new card, and revert to the original settings.”) The card spending limit is reverted back to the original setting once the transaction is performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rendheer in view of Goodsitt by increasing preset limit as taught by Fisher, because modifying Rendheer in view of Goodsitt using elements taught by Fisher helps to better manage and authorize the conditions for a transaction card. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
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 on 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 on (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
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights