CTNF 19/005,306 CTNF 84309 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the claims filed 12/30/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/132839 under 35 U.S.C. 120 which claims benefit of prior-filed application 15/818544 under 35 U.S.C. 120 which claims benefit of prior-filed application 62/439309 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged and granted. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 03/24/2025 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of adaptive daily withdrawal limits without significantly more. Subject Matter Eligibility Standard When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241. Analysis Step 1 , the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and 8 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claim 15 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter. Step 2A Prong 1 , Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “ A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving , by a provider computing system, a data packet comprising a transaction request associated with a payment card from an automated teller machine (ATM), the data packet including a value in a field of a string indicating that the payment card is a smart chip card, the transaction request including a transaction amount; determining , by the provider computing system, that the transaction amount would cause a violation of a daily spending limit associated with the payment card based on the transaction amount; determining , by the provider computing system, that the transaction amount does not exceed a maximum adaptive daily spending limit (ADSL) threshold; determining , by the provider computing system, that an ADSL usage flag does not exceed an ADSL usage flag limit; determining , by the provider computing system, that an account holder associated with the payment card has a sufficient balance to cover the transaction amount; applying , by the provider computing system, an ADSL override based on the determinations that the payment card is the smart chip card, that the transaction amount does not exceed the maximum ADSL threshold, that the ADSL usage flag does not exceed the ADSL usage flag limit, and that the account holder has the sufficient balance, wherein applying the ADSL override increases the daily spending limit by an ADSL amount; transmitting , by the provider computing system, an approval message indicating that the transaction request is approved to the ATM ; and dispensing, by the ATM and subsequent to receiving the approval message , the transaction amount in a currency ”. Claim 8 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “ A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving , by a provider computing system, a data packet comprising a withdrawal transaction request associated with a transaction card from an automated teller machine (ATM), the data packet including a value in a field of a string indicating that the transaction card is a smart chip card, the withdrawal transaction request containing a withdrawal amount; determining , by the provider computing system, that the withdrawal amount would cause a violation of a daily spending limit associated with the transaction card based on the withdrawal amount; determining , by the provider computing system, that the withdrawal amount does not exceed a maximum adaptive daily spending limit (ADSL) threshold; determining , by the provider computing system, that an ADSL usage flag does not exceed an ADSL usage flag limit; determining , by the provider computing system, that an account holder associated with the transaction card has a sufficient balance to cover the withdrawal amount; applying , by the provider computing system, an ADSL override based on the determinations that the transaction card is the smart chip card, that the withdrawal amount does not exceed the maximum ADSL threshold, that the ADSL usage flag does not exceed the ADSL usage flag limit, and that the account holder has the sufficient balance, wherein the ADSL override increases the daily spending limit by and ADSL amount; transmitting, by the provider computing system, the approval message to the ATM ; dispensing, by the ATM and subsequent to receiving the approval message , the withdrawal amount in a currency; and logging , by the provider computing system, an indicator value in a transaction log indicating the determination to apply the ADSL override ”. Claim 15 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A system comprising:a network interface; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to one or more memories having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processing circuit to : receive a data packet comprising a transaction request associated with a payment card from an automated teller machine (ATM), the data packet including a value in a field of a string indicating that the payment card is a smart chip card, the transaction request including a transaction amount; determine that the transaction amount would cause a violation of a daily spending limit associated with the payment card based on the transaction amount; determine that the transaction amount does not exceed a maximum adaptive daily spending limit (ADSL) threshold; determine that an ADSL usage flag does not exceed an ADSL usage flag limit; determine that an account holder associated with the payment card has a sufficient balance to cover the transaction amount; applying an ADSL override based on the determinations that the payment card is the smart chip card, that the transaction amount does not exceed the maximum ADSL threshold, that the ADSL usage flag does not exceed the ADSL usage flag limit, and that the account holder has the sufficient balance, wherein the ADSL override increases the daily spending limit by and ADSL amount; transmit an approval message to the ATM”. Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Adaptive daily withdrawal limits is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 , Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer-implemented; a provider computing system; a data packet; an ATM; dispensing; a message; a system; a network interface; a processing circuit; one or more processors; one or more memories; instructions; transmit; . However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer-implemented ([0007-0008] [0022-0023]) ; a provider computing system ([Figure 1, element 110] [0007-0008] [0022-0023]) ; a data packet ([0021]) ; an ATM ([Figure 1, element 102]) ; dispensing ([0015] [0029] [0043]) ; a message (data transmitted over a network) ; a system ([Figure 1]) ; a network interface ([Figure 1, element 126] [0014]) ; a processing circuit ([Figure 1, element 114] [0022-0023] [0027] [0034]) ; one or more processors ([Figure 1, element 116] [0023] [0048]) ; one or more memories ([Figure 1, element 118] [0023]) ; instructions (software) ; transmit (data transmitted over a network [0028]) ; are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea. Step 2B , the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. Note that the parent applications do not indicate why the claims contain patent eligible subject matter and each claim set rises and falls on their own merits and fact patterns. The examiner’s patent eligibility analysis is based on the present set of claims in the absence an indication of why the parent applications are patent eligible. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following analysis: Claim 1 of 19/005306 maps to claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 claims 3, teaches all of the limits of Claims 1 of 19/005306 except for the action of the method steps in 19/005306 are performed exclusively by a provider computer system instead of the processing circuit of a financial institution computing system of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 2 of 19/005306 maps to claims 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 3 of 19/005306 maps to claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 4 of 19/005306 maps to claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 5 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 6 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 7 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 8 of 19/005306 maps to claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 claims 3, teaches all of the limits of Claims 1 of 19/005306 except for the action of the method steps in 19/005306 are performed exclusively by a provider computer system instead of the processing circuit of a financial institution computing system of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 9 of 19/005306 maps to claims 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 10 of 19/005306 maps to claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 11 of 19/005306 maps to claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 12 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 13 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699. Claim 14 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 B1. U.S. Patent No. US 11625699 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12182783 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following analysis: Claim 1-20 of 19/005306 maps to claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12182783. U.S. Patent No. US 12182783 claims 1-20, teaches all of the limits of Claims 1-20 of 19/005306 except for the action of the method steps in 19/005306 are performed exclusively by a provider computer system instead of the processing circuit of a financial institution computing system of U.S. Patent No. US 12182783. Claim Interpretation - “Associated”, “Associating”, “Association”, “Relating”, “Relationship”, or “Related” The applicant has used to phrase “Associated”, “Associating”, “Association”, “Relating”, “Relationship”, or “Related” throughout the claims. Claim limitations that employ these phrases between claim elements are given their broadest reasonable interpretation of “any association or relationship between said claimed elements”. Prior Art The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. The closest prior art is Budde (PGPub Document No. 20180114207), Herr (PGPub Document No. 20090313156), and Hopkins (PGPub Document No. 20050172137). Budde teaches ([Fig. 1] [0025], devices 110, 120, 130 may provide processing, display, storage, communications, and execution of commands in response to inputs from a user thereof and respond to requests from the software and/or modules) ([0004] “… receiving , electronically, a transaction request at a financial services device from a customer)…” [0017] “ Financial services devices , as used herein, may include machines, kiosks, and stations for performing financial services transactions. These devices include, but are not limited to, automated teller machines ("ATMs") , …” [0048-0049] “…the customer may use the device to conduct one or more financial transactions , such as, but not limited to, a deposit or cash withdrawal . A variety of other transactions may be performed as appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. … At block 208, a secured transaction is requested …”), ([0050] “For example, the device may have a daily limit on cash withdrawals …” [0071] [0104]), ([0002], available balance) and ([0018] “…override predetermined settings to enable the customer to complete a transaction that might not otherwise be able to be completed…”). However, Budde is silent with regard to the use of an ADSL daily usage flag and or that an explicit indication that a smart chip is used at the ATM transaction. Herr teaches a method and system for adapting the spending limits used at an transaction, which can include the use of an ATM. The method and system include the use of an ADSL daily usage flag. The ADSL daily usage flag in Herr ([0056-0058] [Figure 3D, elements 350 and 368]) is used to categorize segments of user accounts as set as U, H or C but is not to a quantitative limit of the frequency in which an ADSL is applied to an account as described in the present application. However, the present application [0040] does further teach that the ADSL daily usage flag can be binary which Herr can be broadly interpreted as teaching ([0058] “…This query is included in the instance that it is desirable to limit, for example, the debit instrument holder to only one approved authorization per ADSL segment per day , if such limitation is desired…”) which reads on the use of applicant’s ADSL daily usage flag. However, Herr does not monitor whether a smart card was used during a transaction in order to dynamically adapt the spending limits. Hopkins teaches identifying if an ATM payment is made using a payment card smart chip ([0025] “The smart card contains the public entity-identifier x and the secret unique key u that are exclusive to the particular smart card…” [0021] “… method comprises enrolling 202 a smart card with a unique key per smart card . The unique key is derived from a private key that is assigned and distinctive to systems and a card base of a card issuer. An enrolled smart card contains a stored public entity-identifier and the secret unique key. The method further comprises transacting 204 at a point of entry to the network . In a particular example, a customer using a smart card initiates a transaction at a terminal such as an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) or a Point of Sale (POS) terminal. The transaction creates a PIN encryption key derived from the smart card unique key , and a transaction identifier that uniquely identifies the point of entry and transaction sequence number. The encryption key is communicated point-to-point 206 in encrypted form through a plurality of nodes in the network. A server for a card issuer recovers 208 the PIN from the PIN encryption key using the private key of the card issuer. The card issuer host system performs computations to verify a received transaction“). Thus, Hopkins teach that the use of a specific smart (chip) card has been used during an ATM transactions. However, nothing in Hopkin suggests that the identification of the smart card is used to generate an adaptive daily spending limit. Therefore, none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection “ applying, by the provider computing system, an ADSL override based on the determinations that the payment card is the smart chip card, that the transaction amount does not exceed the maximum ADSL threshold, that the ADSL usage flag does not exceed the ADSL usage flag limit, and that the account holder has the sufficient balance, wherein applying the ADSL override increases the daily spending limit by an ADSL amount” . Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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. /Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 04/15/2026 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 2 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 3 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 4 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 5 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 6 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 7 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 8 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 9 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 10 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 11 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 12 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 13 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 14 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 15 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 16 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 19/005,306 Page 17 Art Unit: 3691
Prosecution Insights