DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on July 22, 2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The newly filed, May 4, 2026, information disclosure statements (IDS), has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jul7 22, 2026, pages 10-11, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to clarify the payment control dashboard and further add additional limitations that in combination or individually capture “a technological solution for facilitating the use and control of applicable card control rules via a card control dashboard which provides several technical benefits, as described throughout the as-filed application;” id., 11. Applicant also cites to Paragraphs 0015 and 0016 in the specification for the claimed benefits.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although claim amendments were made to try and advance prosecution, the amendments fail to add substantial evidence to result in patent eligible subject matter. The added limitations do not take away from the fact that the claims are deemed to recite a judicial exception, the exception falling under mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, and that the claims fail to include additional elements to transform any abstract idea into a practical application. The abstract idea also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims recite high level limitations to merely apply the exception on a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea is also as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments, pages 11-16, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive/are moot as they do not apply to the newly relied upon reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claims 1, 10, and 16, the claims recite “[a] system, comprising: one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively… generate and cause presentation of a payment control dashboard on a display of a user device, the payment control dashboard being a user interface…[AND] send an alert to the user device to indicate the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, the alert presenting an option to confirm the restriction or at least temporarily disable the modified at least one payment control rule to allow the current transaction.” Emphasis added.
The claims as a whole recite various intended use language. However, the issue is not the intended language but instead the recitation of the functions carried out by the user device. The claims are directed to a system comprising one or more processors, wherein the claimed system does not include the user device; see Figure 1. The claimed system performs the claimed functions linked to the generation of a payment card rule(s) and determining whether to authorize a transaction based on the rule(s). The specification fails to provide support for the system causing a presentation of a payment control dashboard on a display of a user device not alone the generation of said presentation. Such generated displayed output is only recited as being carried out by the user device NOT the claimed system, which is not directed to the user device. As a result, it is not known how such a claimed system that performs the claimed limitations directed to generation of card control rules and enforcement of said rules can also generate and present the claimed display on a device that is not the same device that performs the card rule generation and enforcement; the user device. Likewise, the specification lacks support for the claimed system performing the display of the alert and receiving a response from the user as to either allow or override the transaction. The user has to provide the input to the user device as claimed, not the claimed system which would receive the response from the user device. Receiving data from a user device by the claimed system is not the same as the system performing functions on the actual user device that is a standalone distinct and separate entity. For at least these reasons, the claims are rejected along with all dependent claims under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claims.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of sending an alert to a user regarding a transaction rule violation in order to try and advance a transaction without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. The determination of a transaction being out of pattern, presenting rules, confirming selection, and determining a transaction violates a rule are all limitations that as a whole capture a concept that is directly defined by the above abstract idea grouping and sub-groupings. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims capture an abstract idea grouping of mental processes including judgement opinion and evaluation and carrying out said concepts using pen-and-paper. as will later be analyzed under Step 2A, Prong II, the claimed scope is one that can be carried out using a human mind. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea that can be practiced using a human mind. A human can receive prior user data or historical data linked to a user and generate a rule based on the data, present the rule verbally or in writing, receive selection or approval of the rule, receive request to modify the rule, and then when a transaction takes places the user can determine using pen-and-paper (as with all prior steps) whether the transaction is to be authorized based on the rules and if not, then notifying the user.
Claim 10, in pertinent part, recites:
A method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system and based on an analysis of a transaction history of a user and a transaction history of at least one other user, that the transaction history of the user is inconsistent with the transaction history of at least one other user;
automatically generate, based upon the analysis of the transaction history of the user and the transaction history of the at least one other user, a payment control user profile comprising one or more payment control rules for determining whether to allow or restrict transactions associated with the user;
generating and causing presentation of a payment control dashboard on a display of a user device, the payment control dashboard being a user interface comprising information associated with the payment control user profile and at least one payment control rule of the one or more payment control rules automatically generated based upon the analysis;
receiving… one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule;
modifying… the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections;
responsive to the one or more selections, modifying… by the computing system, the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile;
in response to receiving an indication of a current transaction associated with the user device, identifying… a location of the user device that is associated with the payment control user profile;
determining… that the current transaction of the user violates the modified at least one payment control rule based on the location of the user device being at a location at which transactions are restricted according to the modified at least one payment control rule; and
in response to determining that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, sending… an alert to the user device to indicate the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, the alert presenting an option to confirm the restriction or at least temporarily disable the modified at least one payment rule to allow the current transaction.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a computing system, generating and causing presentation of a payment control dashboard on a display of a user device, non-transitory computer-readable medium, instructions, one or more processors. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the payment control dashboard and the display of the user device are outside the scope of the claims, not part of the claimed system; therefore, they have no weight as far as being at least included as additional elements. However, in efforts of expediting prosecution, the elements are included as part of the additional elements to show that they do not help in adding a practical application. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, identify or analyzing data, generating data, and determining and outcome. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. The additional elements are used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea; automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea is also as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The claimed scope amounts to merely adding extra solution activity to the abstract idea. Likewise, the claims seem to simply link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,516,035 to Moritz et al. (Moritz), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0019352 to Shrivastava (Shrivastava), in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0344991 to Mark et al. (Mark).
Per claims 1, 11 and 16, Moritz teaches all of the following claim limitations:
A system, comprising [Abstract]:
one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively [Col. 10, Ln. 1-28, and Figure 2]:
determine, based on an analysis of a transaction history of a user and a transaction history of at least one other user, that the transaction history of the user is inconsistent with transaction history of the at least one other user (using other user transaction data of other users, determining that the user data is not the same or related) [Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Col. 13, Ln. 4-25; Col. 14, Ln. 3-31; Claim 1, and 9];
automatically generate, based upon the analysis of the transaction history of the user and the transaction history of the at least one other user, a payment control user profile comprising one or more payment control rules for determining whether to allow or restrict transactions associated with the user (a user profile is developed for the user based on historical transaction data of other users and the user/user device data) [Col. 2, Ln. 4-67; Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9, and 12-13];
in response to receiving an indication of a current transaction associated with the user device, identify a location of the user device that is associated with the payment control user profile [Col. 24, Ln. 44-67; Col. 13, Ln. 4-25; Col. 14, Ln. 3-31 and Col. 25, Ln. 1-22];
determine that the current transaction of the user violates the modified at least one payment control rule based on the location of the user device being at a location at which transaction are restricted according to the modified at least one payment control rule [Col. 24, Ln. 44-67 and Col. 25, Ln. 1-22 and claim 6]; and
Moritz does not explicitly disclose:
Although Moritz teaches sending a notification to a user device regarding a transaction and rule for said transaction and receiving a response from the user, as indicated above and in Col. 21, Ln. 17-67 and Col. 22, Ln. 1-15, Moritz does not explicitly disclose generate and cause presentation of a payment control dashboard on a display of a user device, the payment control dashboard being a user interface comprising information associated with the payment control user profile and at least one payment control rule of the one or more payment control rules automatically generated based upon the analysis.
Shrivastava teaches generate and cause presentation of a payment control dashboard on a display of a user device, the payment control dashboard being a user interface comprising information associated with the payment control user profile and at least one payment control rule of the one or more payment control rules automatically generated based upon the analysis (user is able to view the compiled profile including transaction rules and modify accordingly) regarding a transaction rules/user profile and the user is able to alter, using their mobile device, transaction rules/profile) [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach notifying the user by sending a proposed card control rule/user profile to the user’s device/interface/application in motivation of allowing the user to easily review the rules/profile and determine how to appropriately respond to the alert. The use of a control dashboard is not part of the claimed scope and has no patentable weight because the claimed scope is directed to a computing system not including the user device that would include said dashboard. However, the limitation is rejected based on the above rational to expedite prosecution. For emphasis, the sending of the rule has patentable weight but to where the rule is sent can be regarded as simply another entity, meaning sending the alert by the claimed system to another entity. The specifics of another entity are not part of the claimed scope so that is the portion that has no function or weight.
Although Moritz teaches sending a notification to a user device and the user viewing the notifications including transaction rules, Moritz does not explicitly disclose receive, via the payment control dashboard, one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule.
Shrivastava teaches receive, via the payment control dashboard, one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach receive one or more selections from the user to update the payment control user profile and the at least one payment control rule in order to update the transaction rules associated with the card or payment method, thus also enhancing user experience.
Although Moritz teaching notifying a customer of transaction data and the user viewing notifications on their mobile device, Moritz does not explicitly disclose modify the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections.
Shrivastava teaches modify the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach modify the payment control user profile based upon the one or more selections in order to update the transaction rules associated with the card or payment method, thus also enhancing user experience.
Although Moritz teaching notifying a customer of transaction data and the user viewing notifications on their mobile device, Moritz does not explicitly disclose responsive to the one or more selections, modify the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile.
Shrivastava teaches responsive to the one or more selections, modify the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach responsive to the one or more selections, modify the at least one payment control rule of the payment control user profile in order to update the transaction rules associated with the card or payment method, thus also enhancing user experience.
Moritz teaches providing notifications related to transactions and associated rules and allowing for rule changes/modifications, as noted above; however Moritz does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, send an alert to the user device to indicate the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, the alert presenting an option to confirm the restriction or at least temporarily disable the modified at least one payment control rule to allow the current transaction.
Mark teaches in response to determining that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, send an alert to the user device to indicate the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule, the alert presenting an option to confirm the restriction or at least temporarily disable the modified at least one payment control rule to allow the current transaction [Paragraphs 0008, 0041, 0028, 0074-0076, 0058, and 0150 and claims 21 and Figures 3-4 and 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, in view of Shrivastava which teach monitoring transactions and determining if they violate rules and further teach a user device able to receive communications regarding the transactions and rules and ability for the user to modify the rules, to include the teachings of Mark to explicitly disclose alerting the user of a violation of the transaction rules in motivation of allowing the user to override the rule or approve the denial, which enhances user experience and security.
Examiner notes that the claims contain conditional language that results in the claims not having to occur. More specifically, regarding the method independent claim and related dependent claims, such conditional limitations have no patentable weight as they do not have to occur under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Art is provided for the conditional language to expedite prosecution.
Per claim 2, 11, and 17, Moritz teaches wherein the transaction history of the user is a transaction history of a payment card of the user within a specified period of time [Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9].
Per claim 3, 12, and 18, Moritz teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to classify the transaction history of the user based upon a plurality of transaction types (The type of data taught by Moritz includes a plurality of data resulting in obviously utilizing any data to help generate the rules/profile) [Col. 8, Ln. 54-67; Col. 9, Ln. 1-20; Col. 23, Ln. 34-53].
Per claim 4, Moritz teaches wherein the transaction history of the user includes past transactions involving a plurality of payment cards of the user [Col. 11, Ln. 6-67; Col. 23, Ln. 43-67; Claim 1, and 9].
Per claim 5, 14, and 19, Moritz teaches wherein the determination that the current transaction violates the modified at least one payment control rule is based on a comparison of the location of the user device with a location of a merchant [Col. 24, Ln. 49-67].
Per claim 7, 13, Although Moritz teaches a user device having a GUI to allow user selections, Moritz does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more selections to update the payment control user profile comprises at least one selection modifying information associated with the user, the information associated with the user comprising demographic information.
Shrivastava teaches wherein the one or more selections to update the payment control user profile comprises at least one selection modifying information associated with the user, the information associated with the user comprising demographic information [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach wherein the one or more selections to update the payment control user profile comprises at least one selection modifying information associated with the user, the information associated with the user comprising demographic information in motivation of providing the user with an ability to modify data such as user geographic location data.
Per claim 8, Although Moritz teaches a user device having a GUI to allow user selections, Moritz does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display the payment control user profile on the user device.
Shrivastava teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display the payment control user profile on the user device [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device and displaying data on user device using a GUI based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach displaying payment control user profile in order to update enhance user experience and give the user control over the rules.
Per claim 9, Although Moritz teaches a user device having a GUI to allow user selections, Moritz does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: present, via the payment control dashboard, the one or more payment control rules and a geo-enable feature; and accept, via the payment control dashboard, a user selection to geo-enable the one or more payment control rules.
Shrivastava teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: present, via the payment control dashboard, the one or more payment control rules and a geo-enable feature; and accept, via the payment control dashboard, a user selection to geo-enable the one or more payment control rules [Paragraphs 0200 and 0261 and Figures 8 and 21 and related text].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, which teaches notifying the user of a transaction rule violation at their device and displaying data on user device using a GUI based on generation of a user profile including rules for transaction, which would display the alert, to include the teachings of Shrivastava to explicitly teach presenting the rules and controls to the user including location in motivation of enhancing user experience and give the user control over the rules.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritz, in view of Shrivastava, and in further view of International Application Publication WO 2011/008815 to Scragg (Scragg).
Per claim 6, 15, and 20, Although Moritz teaches providing rules customized based on user previous transaction data and also other users related to the user, Moritz in view of Scragg do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more payment control rules comprise a first payment control rule associated with a first merchant and a second payment control rule associated with a second merchant, wherein the first payment control rule is more restrictive than the second payment control rule based on a determination that a risk of fraud associated with the first merchant is higher than a risk of fraud associated with the second merchant.
Scragg teaches wherein the one or more payment control rules comprise a first payment control rule associated with a first merchant and a second payment control rule associated with a second merchant, wherein the first payment control rule is more restrictive than the second payment control rule based on a determination that a risk of fraud associated with the first merchant is higher than a risk of fraud associated with the second merchant [Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0007, and 0045-0048, 0056-0057, and 0063-0064 and 0069 including reference to further prior art].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Moritz, in view of Shrivastava, which disclose assigning specific rules to user accounts based on data including user transaction data and other users’ transaction data, to include the teachings of Scragg to explicitly disclose that the rules set are based on fraud determination of merchants with those with higher fraud having stricter rules in motivation of increasing security measures in authorizing transactions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 of the instant Applicant is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613. Although claim 1 of the instant Application is not identical to claim 1 of Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same scope of invention. The instant Application recites a broader scope compared to Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613. Removal of the additional limitations in Patents 11869013, 12354111, 11556936, 11875358, 12299691, and 12450613 would amount to the claimed scope of the instant application. Such removal of limitation to amount to the instant claimed scope is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
PGPUB 2016/0063497 to Grant et al. teaches user inface at a user device, graphical interface, that allows users to interact with transaction rules to update, modify, alter transaction rules and send said selection to a control system.
PGPUB 2017/0357971 to Pitz teaches transaction authentication based on rules including fraudulent determination using location, activity, and updating said fraudulent determination constantly based on data. Pitz also sending users alerts regarding a transaction and the user providing additional transaction information to settle a transaction.
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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights