DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 19/270,881, was filed on 07/16/2025, and claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application 63/671,816, filed 07/16/2024.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 10/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 has been considered.
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. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is a method claim, claim 19 is an apparatus claim, and claim 20 is an article of manufacture claim or product by process claim (“non-transitory computer readable medium”).
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 19 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
19. An electronic device comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
presenting a user interface identifying multiple user accounts for multiple vendors, each of the user accounts associated with a recurring automatic payment to the vendor until cancelled;
receiving input to take automatic actions to cancel one or more user accounts of the multiple user accounts;
determining a cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts;
in accordance with the cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts:
accessing electronic account services for the one or more user accounts; and
modifying payment information for the one or more user accounts via the electronic account services to change a payment method to a credit or debit card account having a balance or limit insufficient to cover the recurring automatic payment associated with the respective user account; and
providing a notification via the user interface that the one more user accounts have been modified for cancellation purposes.
More specifically, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“determining a cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts”.
“in accordance with the cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts:”.
“accessing electronic account services for the one or more user accounts”.
“modifying payment information for the one or more user accounts via the electronic account services to change a payment method to a credit or debit card account having a balance or limit insufficient to cover the recurring automatic payment associated with the respective user account”.
Moreover, claims 1-20 recite “Mathematical Concepts", specifically “Mathematical Relationships”, “Mathematical Formulas or Equations”, and “Mathematical Calculations”, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The mathematic elements include:
“modifying payment information for the one or more user accounts via the electronic account services to change a payment method to a credit or debit card account having a balance or limit insufficient to cover the recurring automatic payment associated with the respective user account”.
The “additional elements” include: “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, and “a user interface”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include:
“presenting a user interface identifying multiple user accounts for multiple vendors, , each of the user accounts associated with a recurring automatic payment to the vendor until cancelled”,
“receiving input to take automatic actions to cancel one or more user accounts of the multiple user accounts”, and
“providing a notification via the user interface that the one more user accounts have been modified for cancellation purposes”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, and “a user interface”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“presenting a user interface identifying multiple user accounts for multiple vendors, , each of the user accounts associated with a recurring automatic payment to the vendor until cancelled”, “receiving input to take automatic actions to cancel one or more user accounts of the multiple user accounts”, and “providing a notification via the user interface that the one more user accounts have been modified for cancellation purposes”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, and “a user interface”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“presenting a user interface identifying multiple user accounts for multiple vendors, , each of the user accounts associated with a recurring automatic payment to the vendor until cancelled”, “receiving input to take automatic actions to cancel one or more user accounts of the multiple user accounts”, and “providing a notification via the user interface that the one more user accounts have been modified for cancellation purposes”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving” and “transmitting” (“providing a notification”) steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to the “displaying” (“presenting a user interface”) steps, see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that the claimed menu graphic user interface is an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claims the resulting systems").
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claims 1 and 20 are rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1. Independent claim 20 is also rejected on the grounds that it recites a computer-readable medium, which is merely another generic computer component.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 1-7, 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0046270 A1 to Maiman et al. (“Maiman”. Filed on Aug. 8, 2022. Published on Feb. 8, 2024) in view of Google Patents English Language Translation of KR 20150058474 A to Katz et al. (“Katz”. Eff. Filed on Sept. 23, 2013. Published on May 28, 2015).
In regards to claim 1, Maiman teaches:
1. A method comprising:
at a processor of an electronic device:
presenting a user interface identifying multiple user accounts for multiple vendors, each of the user accounts associated with a recurring automatic payment to the vendor until cancelled;
(See Maiman, para. [0003]: “Some implementations described herein relate to a method for intelligent processing of automatic transaction requests. The method may include receiving, by a system, an automatic transaction request associated with an amount to be transferred from a value associated with a main account. The method may include determining, by the system, that transferring the amount associated with the automatic transaction request from the main account would cause the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy a threshold. The method may include generating, by the system, an alternative transaction processing instruction to prevent the automatic transaction request from causing the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy the threshold. The method may include processing, by the system, the automatic transaction request according to the alternative transaction processing instruction, wherein processing the automatic transaction request includes, processing the automatic transaction request using one or more alternative accounts, or processing the automatic transaction request using the main account after the value of the main account has changed to a level that is sufficient to satisfy the threshold and to cover the amount associated with the automatic transaction request.”)
The Examiner interprets that the reference teaches both: “The method may include determining, by the system, that transferring the amount associated with the automatic transaction request from the main account would cause the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy a threshold” and also “the value of the main account has changed to a level that is sufficient to satisfy the threshold and to cover the amount associated with the automatic transaction request”.
determining a cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts;
(See Maiman, para. [0037]: “As another example, if the machine learning system were to predict a value of delay for the target variable of payment decision, then the machine learning system may provide a second (e.g., different) recommendation (e.g., that the user cancel a media streaming service or other service with a low consumption rate) and/or may perform or cause performance of a second (e.g., different) automated action (e.g., generating a payment instruction that causes the automatic payment to be delayed until the available balance in the linked account has increased, such as after a payroll deposit or electronic funds transfer).”)
in accordance with the cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts:
accessing electronic account services for the one or more user accounts; and
modifying payment information for the one or more user accounts via the electronic account services to change a payment method to a credit or debit card account having a balance or limit insufficient to cover the recurring automatic payment associated with the respective user account; and
(See Maiman, para. [0003]: “Some implementations described herein relate to a method for intelligent processing of automatic transaction requests. The method may include receiving, by a system, an automatic transaction request associated with an amount to be transferred from a value associated with a main account. The method may include determining, by the system, that transferring the amount associated with the automatic transaction request from the main account would cause the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy a threshold. The method may include generating, by the system, an alternative transaction processing instruction to prevent the automatic transaction request from causing the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy the threshold. The method may include processing, by the system, the automatic transaction request according to the alternative transaction processing instruction, wherein processing the automatic transaction request includes, processing the automatic transaction request using one or more alternative accounts, or processing the automatic transaction request using the main account after the value of the main account has changed to a level that is sufficient to satisfy the threshold and to cover the amount associated with the automatic transaction request.”)
The Examiner interprets that the reference teaches both: “The method may include determining, by the system, that transferring the amount associated with the automatic transaction request from the main account would cause the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy a threshold” and also “the value of the main account has changed to a level that is sufficient to satisfy the threshold and to cover the amount associated with the automatic transaction request”.
(See Maiman, para. [0036]: “As an example, the trained machine learning model 225 may predict a value of redirect for the target variable of payment decision for the new observation, as shown by reference number 235. Based on this prediction, the machine learning system may provide a first recommendation, may provide output for determination of a first recommendation, may perform a first automated action, and/or may cause a first automated action to be performed (e.g., by instructing another device to perform the automated action), among other examples. The first recommendation may include, for example, a recommendation that a user reconfigure an automatic payment to be directed to an alternative account corresponding to a credit card account with a low balance or a low interest rate. The first automated action may include, for example, generating a payment instruction that redirects the automatic payment to the alternative account corresponding to the credit card account with the low balance or low interest rate.”)
(See Maiman, para. [0037]: “As another example, if the machine learning system were to predict a value of delay for the target variable of payment decision, then the machine learning system may provide a second (e.g., different) recommendation (e.g., that the user cancel a media streaming service or other service with a low consumption rate) and/or may perform or cause performance of a second (e.g., different) automated action (e.g., generating a payment instruction that causes the automatic payment to be delayed until the available balance in the linked account has increased, such as after a payroll deposit or electronic funds transfer).”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of Maiman, it could be argued that Maiman does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Katz:
receiving input to take automatic actions to cancel one or more user accounts of the multiple user accounts;
(See Katz: “The card issuer processing system sends a queue of eligible transactions to the dispute resolution system for processing. The request includes transaction data required for the determination of an objection to a transaction, such as a credit card number, transaction amount, transaction data, and seller identification. The dispute resolution system determines whether the transaction is eligible for resolution under the system, and if so, instructs the issuer of the credit to the cardholder in the transaction, cancels the transaction, (s) to the originating merchant. The present invention can be used for payment types such as a plurality of card types, card issuers, sellers and ACH, mobile payment, LEC bill, and the like.”)
(See Katz: “As a further related aspect, a merchant or partner-based approach to solving an inquiry or inquiry between a customer and an electronic payment provider associated with a transaction between a partner / aggregator platform and a seller and its affiliates, based methods and devices are disclosed herein. In one approach, the method may involve receiving an inquiry / appeal event notification at the partner entity / platform. The method may obtain a data point for a transaction and find a transaction based on the data point. The method may involve refunding the transaction, canceling the transaction, and / or blocking the future / automatic payment fee. In a related aspect, an electronic device (e.g., a partner / aggregator server or its component (s)) may be set up to perform the methodology described above.”)
(See Katz: “At step 68, the card account subject to payment determination is flagged for future authorizations and cancellations of periodic subscriptions, so that future authorizations from the seller to the disputed cardholder are blocked at the gateway level and the subscription to the cardholder is canceled. This prevents further use of the card for goods or services provided by the
providing a notification via the user interface that the one more user accounts have been modified for cancellation purposes.
(See Katz: “For example, a user or customer 110 may purchase from participating merchant 120. The customer 110 may inquire about the purchase and / or the appeal of the transaction with the purchaser / card issuer 150. The card company 150 may submit a case related to the inquiry and / or objection to the objection resolution platform 140 and then submit an objection event notification to the partner platform 130. The partner platform 130 may obtain case details from the objection resolution platform 140 and / or from other platforms in functional communication with the objection resolution platform 14. The partner platform 130 may process the case and notify the dispute resolution platform 140 that the case has been resolved. Partner platform 130 may notify seller 120 as to any associated refunds and / or cancellations for the case and the payment. The dispute resolution platform 140 may notify the card issuer 150 of the case resolution.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Intelligent decisioning and routing for requests related to automated events”, as taught by Maiman above, with “System and method for providing dispute resolution for electronic payment transactions”, as further taught by Katz above, because Katz teaches that “The present invention provides a card company or other electronic payment provider with a system and method for obtaining a quick, good and efficient solution to an appeal to a customer's merchant, thereby providing excellent customer service while reducing operating costs”.
In regards to claim 2,
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising identifying the multiple user accounts via an automated process that inspects a user financial account for recurring payments.
(See Maiman, para. [0013]: “In cases where there are multiple alternative funding sources and/or multiple automatic payment requests that are eligible to be delayed and/or redirected, the automatic payment system may further use machine learning techniques to select the best alternative funding source and/or prioritize the automatic payment requests (e.g., approve a critical payment such as a utility bill from the main account, and redirect or hold low-priority payments such as streaming service bills).
In regards to claim 3,
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising identifying the multiple user accounts via a machine learning model that inspects a user financial account for recurring payments.
(See Maiman, para. [0006]: “FIG. 2 is a diagram of training and using a machine learning model in connection with intelligent decisioning and routing for requests related to automated events, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure.”)
In regards to claim 4,
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising distinguishing user accounts that require contractual changes for cancellation.
The Examiner interprets that this is a non-technological feature, and an example of an intended use of a value stored in a database.
In regards to claim 5,
5. The method of claim 1 further comprising receiving login credentials for the one or more user accounts, wherein the electronic account services for the one or more user accounts are accessed based on the login credentials.
(See Maiman, para. [0011]: “In an automatic payment arrangement, a consumer authorizes a creditor to withdraw money from a bank account and/or charge money to a credit card account in order to pay a bill. For example, many creditors may allow a customer to register for automatic payments through a website, in which case the customer logs into the creditor website, link a main account from which to debit funds (e.g., in the case of a linked bank account) or charge payments (e.g., in the case of a linked credit card account), and/or agree to any other payment terms and/or conditions (e.g., a date on which to debit or charge payments).”)
In regards to claim 6,
6. The method of claim 1 further comprising identifying existing sessions accessing the one or more user accounts via an app or webpage, wherein the electronic account services for the one or more user accounts are accessed based on the existing sessions.
(See Maiman, para. [0011]: “In an automatic payment arrangement, a consumer authorizes a creditor to withdraw money from a bank account and/or charge money to a credit card account in order to pay a bill. For example, many creditors may allow a customer to register for automatic payments through a website, in which case the customer logs into the creditor website, link a main account from which to debit funds (e.g., in the case of a linked bank account) or charge payments (e.g., in the case of a linked credit card account), and/or agree to any other payment terms and/or conditions (e.g., a date on which to debit or charge payments).”)
In regards to claim 7,
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the cancellation technique for each of the one or more user accounts is based on a repository storing account vendor- specific information.
(See Maiman, para. [0017]: “For example, FIG. 1 illustrates an example in which the user configures various bills to be paid from a linked bank account, which may be a debit, checking, savings, or other suitable account that permits an ACH funds transfer. In the illustrated example, the user has configured automatic payments in which a mortgage bill, a utility bill, a streaming service bill, and/or other bills are electronically paid from the linked bank account. It will be appreciated that the automatic payments shown in FIG. 1 are examples only, and that many types of automatic payments may be configured (e.g., for gym memberships, childcare services, rent, automatic toll transponders, merchant-specific loyalty cards, tuition, and/or automobile loans or leases, among other examples).”)
(See Maiman, para. [0019]: “For example, a financial institution may issue a transaction card (e.g., a credit card) to a person, company, or organization, and a transaction management system of the financial institution may also issue one or more virtual card numbers that can be used with different merchant transaction systems. For example, a first virtual credential may be usable with a first merchant only, a second virtual credential may be usable with a second merchant only, and so on. Accordingly, because virtual credentials can generally be used in the same way as an actual credit card, virtual credentials can offer increased security in online transactions that occur in a context where a physical transaction card is not required or physically presented to a merchant. For example, if a security breach were to result in a first virtual credential being exposed or otherwise compromised (e.g., to a hacker or fraudster), the virtual credential could be used only at the particular merchant and would be unusable with any other merchant(s). In this way, using the virtual credential in an online transaction may reduce a risk that, and/or an extent to which, the virtual credential can be fraudulently used, thereby improving information security.”)
In regards to claim 9,
9. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the payment information for the one or more user accounts comprises specifying a debit card having a balance below a predetermined threshold.
(See Maiman, para. [0003]: “Some implementations described herein relate to a method for intelligent processing of automatic transaction requests. The method may include receiving, by a system, an automatic transaction request associated with an amount to be transferred from a value associated with a main account. The method may include determining, by the system, that transferring the amount associated with the automatic transaction request from the main account would cause the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy a threshold. The method may include generating, by the system, an alternative transaction processing instruction to prevent the automatic transaction request from causing the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy the threshold. The method may include processing, by the system, the automatic transaction request according to the alternative transaction processing instruction, wherein processing the automatic transaction request includes, processing the automatic transaction request using one or more alternative accounts, or processing the automatic transaction request using the main account after the value of the main account has changed to a level that is sufficient to satisfy the threshold and to cover the amount associated with the automatic transaction request.”)
In regards to claim 10,
10. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the payment information for the one or more user accounts comprises specifying a payment card having a limit below a predetermined threshold.
(See Maiman, para. [0003]: “Some implementations described herein relate to a method for intelligent processing of automatic transaction requests. The method may include receiving, by a system, an automatic transaction request associated with an amount to be transferred from a value associated with a main account. The method may include determining, by the system, that transferring the amount associated with the automatic transaction request from the main account would cause the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy a threshold. The method may include generating, by the system, an alternative transaction processing instruction to prevent the automatic transaction request from causing the value associated with the main account to fail to satisfy the threshold. The method may include processing, by the system, the automatic transaction request according to the alternative transaction processing instruction, wherein processing the automatic transaction request includes, processing the automatic transaction request using one or more alternative accounts, or processing the automatic transaction request using the main account after the value of the main account has changed to a level that is sufficient to satisfy the threshold and to cover the amount associated with the automatic transaction request.”)
In regards to claim 19, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
In regards to claim 20, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights