DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 9, 14-16 18 and 20. No claims have been added. Claims 3-5, 8, 10 and 13 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-20 are pending in this application. 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
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 15 May 2026 with respect to
objection to claims 4, 8 and 13, and
rejection to claims 1-20 under U.S.C. § 101
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges that claim objections are moot because their respective claims have been canceled.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application 03 December 2024. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 03 December 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 14, in the representative limitation of claim 1:
based on the first one of the plurality of issuers associated with the first payment method being unavailable and the first payment method having insufficient funds for the purchase, as determined through the open banking communication, then performing one of the following:
it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of the phrase “the first payment method being unavailable”. Perhaps, being unavailable is related to “based on a check of network availability of a first one of the plurality of issuers” as in “being unavailable over a network” (emphasis added), or it means “unavailable” such that the term “unavailable” is relative or subjective term which renders the claim as indefinite. As per MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology [R-07.2022]
IV. SUBJECTIVE TERMS
When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of the term, similar to the analysis for a term of degree. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase “unobtrusive manner” indefinite because the specification did not “provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary”).
Claims 1, 9 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are between “determining one or more spending habits of the user” and “receiving information regarding a first payment method and one or more alternative payment methods from the user”.
For purposes of examination, the above claims will be interpreted to the best of the Examiner’s ability unless specified differently above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6-7, 11-12 and 15-20 are rejected by way of dependency on a rejected independent claim.
The art rejections below are in view of the 112(b) rejections stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletz et al (US Pub. No. 20080277465 A1) in view of Laracey (US Pub. No. 20220051231 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 14, Pletz teaches a method and a system providing a single card product (or identifier) that may be linked to multiple customized accounts, as defined by a set of rules [0009]. The accounts may represent one or more relationships between the customer and the card issuer, bank and/or other entity. Through an embodiment of the present invention, a line of credit may be provided to a customer where the line of credit may be shared by multiple accounts where each account may be customized [Id.]. He teaches:
receiving, from a service provider, bank account information from a user, using open banking communication, the bank account information including data representative of a plurality of transactions – [0024] and [0026];
performing, by a computing device, a review of the plurality of transactions to determine one or more spending habits of the user – [0032], [0038] and [0049];
receiving information regarding a first payment method and one or more alternative payment methods from the user, each payment method associated with a respective one of a plurality of issuers – [0038], [0042] and [0051] “Priority Rules 330 may define which account is invoked for each transaction based on one or more defined conditions. The conditions may be based on transaction type, merchant or provider identity or type, transaction amount, timing of transaction and/or other condition defined by the customer and/or other entity. In addition, multiple accounts may be used for a transaction, based on the defined rules. The Account/Relationship 310 may include various accounts which may be associated with one or more customers 310, 312. The various accounts may include stored value account 340, debit account 342, credit card account 344, loyalty card account 346, co-branded account 348 and/or other types of card products, accounts and/or relationships with an entity. In addition, at the point of sale with merchant 320 (or other provider 322), the customer may override any predefined rule and select a preferred account”; and
receiving, from an electronic device of the user, through an application, a request for payment availability before making a purchase – [0044] and [0048] “The system may then respond by selecting an account for each transaction that will maximize rewards points for the customer”.
Pletz teaches priority rules that define conditions for invoking a particular account of the plurality of accounts based on one or more transaction factors [0011]. Pletz does not teach other limitations.
However, Laracey teaches systems, methods, processes, computer program code and means for operating a mobile device to conduct transactions with merchants, services providers and other devices (such as automated teller machines or “ATMs”) [0013]. He teaches:
determining, by the computing device, based on a check of network availability of a first one of the plurality of issuers associated with the first payment method, that the first one of the plurality of issuers is unavailable, wherein the network availability includes an ability of the first one of the plurality of issuers to communicate through a credit network – [0108] “the situation where it is not possible for the wallet issuer 260 to obtain a payment authorization from the payment processing networks 280 based on the information available to the wallet issuer 260, the token issuing authority 250 may obtain the payment authorization”, [0118] and [0119]; and
based on the first one of the plurality of issuers associated with the first payment method being unavailable and the first payment method having insufficient funds for the purchase, as determined through the open banking communication, then performing one of the following: selecting one of the one or more alternative payment methods – [0119], orprompting the user, through the application, to make a selection from the one or more alternative payment methods, whereby the user selects one of the one or more alternative payment methods and the electronic device provides the one of the one or more alternate payment methods to a merchant for the purchase - (not further limiting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pletz's disclosure to include obtaining payment authorization when it is not possible for the wallet issuer to obtain a payment authorization from the payment processing networks as taught by Laracey because one would have recognized such processing as old and well known for doing payments.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Pletz does not explicitly disclose completing the purchase utilizing the selected one of the alternative payment methods. However, Laracey discloses selecting a desired payment account to be used to complete a transaction [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pletz's disclosure to include completing a transaction using a desired payment account as taught by Laracey because it automates the system and makes the system responsive to customer needs.
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 19, Pletz teaches each payment method as including a credit card or a debit card [0011] and [0047].
Regarding claims 7, 12 and 20, Pletz teaches performing the review of the transactions as including determining a frequency of transactions and an average transaction amount at one or more specific merchants [0011].
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 16-18, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Schuh: “Data Acquisition And Management System For Advertisement And Retail Use”, (US Pub. No. 20150294373 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights