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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 8/7/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (NO). Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (YES). Claims 16-20 are directed to a system (YES). Claims 9-15 are directed to a computer-readable medium (NO).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (see MPEP § 2106 Subsection III), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 16 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, including:
A computer system for automatically spending the balance of an account, comprising:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to determine that a remaining balance of the account is greater than a predetermined threshold;
program instructions to determine a spending balance;
program instructions to determine that a first item on a purchase list is affordable;
program instructions to schedule a first order to purchase the first item; and
program instructions to send a first notification of the first order to a user.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations as emphasized, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the steps are performed by program instructions, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “program instructions to” language, “determine, schedule and send” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
The claim recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including:
A computer system for automatically spending the balance of an account, comprising:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to determine that a remaining balance of the account is greater than a predetermined threshold;
program instructions to determine a spending balance;
program instructions to determine that a first item on a purchase list is affordable;
program instructions to schedule a first order to purchase the first item; and
program instructions to send a first notification of the first order to a user.
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 16 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.) Specifically, the additional element of one or more computer processors, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of connecting to a platform on a network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements to no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the steps are performed by program instructions, only generally links the commercial interactions and management of relationships or interactions between people to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of system claim 16, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 16 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 16 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 16, and does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons.
Claim 9 is a computer readable storage medium reciting similar functions as claim 16, and does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 are dependencies of claims 1, 9 and 16. The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. They recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claims 9-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed signals per se.
Claim 9-15 is directed to a computer readable medium. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory media and transitory propaganda signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. Signals per se are non-statutory subject matter, therefore claims 9-15 are non-statutory. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (See Kappos Memo dated January 26, 2010).
Applicant is advised that amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory computer readable medium” shall overcome the noted rejection.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 9-12, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140136365 A1 to Nista in view of US 11847623 B1 to Bowers.
Regarding Claim 1, Nista discloses A method for automatically spending a balance of an account, comprising:
determining that a remaining balance of the account is greater than a threshold; ([0073] accumulated savings 118A-D for the respective queues 106A-D. For example, $200 has been saved for electronics in queue 106B. [0023] once there are enough funds (greater than a threshold) available to purchase the particular items or items in the particular categories. [0051] The shopping and budgeting system may also support user purchases by a certain date or time. The user may set timelines for purchases, and the shopping and budgeting system may keep track of user contributions to funds and notify the user when a given purchase is not on schedule for the specified timeline. When determining whether or not to notify the user, the shopping and budgeting system may allow for a user-configurable threshold variation in the amounts of contributions by the user. In other words, the shopping and budgeting system need not notify the user unless the user is over 10% behind schedule or under 5% ahead of schedule in saving up for an item.)
determining a spending balance; ([0042] budget for sports equipment)
determining that a first item on a purchase list is affordable; ([0042] affordable items in the queue)
scheduling a first order to purchase the first item; and ([0134] the shopping and budgeting system may automatically send a purchase order to a vendor or seller of the item. In this embodiment, the satisfaction of a condition may cause an automatic purchase of the item. [0020] start or complete purchase of the item.)
sending a first notification of the first order to a user. ([0042] the budgeting system may notify the user that the first item in the queue is affordable, and/or the budgeting system may cause purchase of this item.)
But does not explicitly disclose predetermined threshold balance.
Bowers, on the other hand, teaches predetermined threshold balance. ([Col 17 Ln 5-10] The notification may be triggered when a customer cures a negative balance; when the account balance is greater than a predetermined threshold balance;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nista to include the features as taught by Bowers. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Nista in order to provide customers the options to manage their financial accounts (Bowers, [Col 1 Ln 15-20]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 1.
Nista discloses determining that the first item on the purchase list is not affordable; determining that a subsequent item on the purchase list is affordable; scheduling a second order to purchase the subsequent item; and sending a second notification of the second order item to the user.. ([0042] for a given user, a budget for sports equipment that has $100 as a currently designated amount towards sports equipment. In a first example, the sports equipment budget may have 4 items priced at $25 each. In this example, notifications or purchases may be triggered for all four of the items because they are within the budget for sports equipment. In a second example, the sports equipment budget has 4 items, 3 of which are priced at $25, and one of which is priced at $150. If the $150 item is first in the queue, then the budgeting system may stall notification or purchase of any of the items until the first item is within the budget. Alternatively, the budgeting system may only stall purchase of the other items, and may notify the user that there are affordable items in the queue. If the $150 item is second in the queue, then the budgeting system may notify the user that the first item in the queue is affordable, and/or the budgeting system may cause purchase of this item. The budgeting system may stall purchase or notification for the other items until they are within the budget in the specified order.)
Regarding Claim 3, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 1.
Nista discloses determining that the first item on the purchase list is not affordable; determining that a subsequent item on the purchase list is affordable; scheduling a second order to purchase the subsequent item; and sending a second notification of the second order item to the user.. ([0057] the user-specific savings plan cannot afford the item [0136] the message lists the most affordable item that matches the user's criteria, and the best rated item that matches the user's criteria. [0023] automatically or by suggestion, purchasing particular items or items in particular categories once there are enough funds available to purchase the particular items or items in the particular categories. The system may help users make decisions of whether or not the system should make or suggest a purchase based on both (a) a potentially changing accumulated budget, and (b) a potentially changing item price.)
Regarding Claim 4, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 3.
Nista discloses wherein the step of finding the relatable affordable item comprises: determining that a previously purchased item is a repurchasable item; and determining that the cost of the previously purchased item is less than or equal to the spending balance. ([0135] the shopping and budgeting system makes suggestions or completes purchases of recurring item(s), such as paper, toner, pens, pencils, or other items that are user-specified as items used for normal business activities. The user may specify a period of time after which these items should be added to the front of an office supply or recurring item queue. When the items are purchased, the period of time may be reset. Upon expiration of the time period again, the items may be added to the front of the queue and purchased again. [0136] the message lists the most affordable item that matches the user's criteria, and the best rated item that matches the user's criteria. [0023] automatically or by suggestion, purchasing particular items or items in particular categories once there are enough funds available to purchase the particular items or items in the particular categories. The system may help users make decisions of whether or not the system should make or suggest a purchase based on both (a) a potentially changing accumulated budget, and (b) a potentially changing item price.)
Regarding Claim 5, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 1.
Nista discloses wherein the step of determining the spending balance comprises: determining a carryover amount; and subtracting the carryover amount from the remaining balance.. ([0135] the shopping and budgeting system makes suggestions or completes purchases of recurring item(s), such as paper, toner, pens, pencils, or other items that are user-specified as items used for normal business activities. The user may specify a period of time after which these items should be added to the front of an office supply or recurring item queue. When the items are purchased, the period of time may be reset. Upon expiration of the time period again, the items may be added to the front of the queue and purchased again. [0136] the message lists the most affordable item that matches the user's criteria, and the best rated item that matches the user's criteria. [0023] automatically or by suggestion, purchasing particular items or items in particular categories once there are enough funds available to purchase the particular items or items in the particular categories. The system may help users make decisions of whether or not the system should make or suggest a purchase based on both (a) a potentially changing accumulated budget, and (b) a potentially changing item price.)
Regarding Claim 9, Nista discloses A computer program product for automatically spending the balance of an account, comprising: a computer readable storage medium and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage medium, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to determine that a remaining balance of the account is greater than a threshold; ([0073] accumulated savings 118A-D for the respective queues 106A-D. For example, $200 has been saved for electronics in queue 106B. [0023] once there are enough funds (greater than a threshold) available to purchase the particular items or items in the particular categories. [0051] The shopping and budgeting system may also support user purchases by a certain date or time. The user may set timelines for purchases, and the shopping and budgeting system may keep track of user contributions to funds and notify the user when a given purchase is not on schedule for the specified timeline. When determining whether or not to notify the user, the shopping and budgeting system may allow for a user-configurable threshold variation in the amounts of contributions by the user. In other words, the shopping and budgeting system need not notify the user unless the user is over 10% behind schedule or under 5% ahead of schedule in saving up for an item.)
program instructions to determine a spending balance; ([0042] budget for sports equipment)
program instructions to determine that a first item on a purchase list is affordable; ([0042] affordable items in the queue)
program instructions to schedule a first order to purchase the first item; and ([0134] the shopping and budgeting system may automatically send a purchase order to a vendor or seller of the item. In this embodiment, the satisfaction of a condition may cause an automatic purchase of the item. [0020] start or complete purchase of the item.)
program instructions to send a first notification of the first order to a user. ([0042] the budgeting system may notify the user that the first item in the queue is affordable, and/or the budgeting system may cause purchase of this item.)
But does not explicitly disclose predetermined threshold balance.
Bowers, on the other hand, teaches predetermined threshold balance. ([Col 17 Ln 5-10] The notification may be triggered when a customer cures a negative balance; when the account balance is greater than a predetermined threshold balance;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nista to include the features as taught by Bowers. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Nista in order to provide customers the options to manage their financial accounts (Bowers, [Col 1 Ln 15-20]).
Claim 10 is a computer program product claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 11 is a computer program product claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 12 is a computer program product claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, Nista discloses A computer system for automatically spending the balance of an account, comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to determine that a remaining balance of the account is greater than a threshold; ([0073] accumulated savings 118A-D for the respective queues 106A-D. For example, $200 has been saved for electronics in queue 106B. [0023] once there are enough funds (greater than a threshold) available to purchase the particular items or items in the particular categories. [0051] The shopping and budgeting system may also support user purchases by a certain date or time. The user may set timelines for purchases, and the shopping and budgeting system may keep track of user contributions to funds and notify the user when a given purchase is not on schedule for the specified timeline. When determining whether or not to notify the user, the shopping and budgeting system may allow for a user-configurable threshold variation in the amounts of contributions by the user. In other words, the shopping and budgeting system need not notify the user unless the user is over 10% behind schedule or under 5% ahead of schedule in saving up for an item.)
program instructions to determine a spending balance; ([0042] budget for sports equipment)
program instructions to determine that a first item on a purchase list is affordable; ([0042] affordable items in the queue)
program instructions to schedule a first order to purchase the first item; and ([0134] the shopping and budgeting system may automatically send a purchase order to a vendor or seller of the item. In this embodiment, the satisfaction of a condition may cause an automatic purchase of the item. [0020] start or complete purchase of the item.)
program instructions to send a first notification of the first order to a user. ([0042] the budgeting system may notify the user that the first item in the queue is affordable, and/or the budgeting system may cause purchase of this item.)
But does not explicitly disclose predetermined threshold balance.
Bowers, on the other hand, teaches predetermined threshold balance. ([Col 17 Ln 5-10] The notification may be triggered when a customer cures a negative balance; when the account balance is greater than a predetermined threshold balance;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nista to include the features as taught by Bowers. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Nista in order to provide customers the options to manage their financial accounts (Bowers, [Col 1 Ln 15-20]).
Claim 17 is a computer system claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 18 is a computer system claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 19 is a computer system claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 4.
Claims 5, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140136365 A1 to Nista in view of US 11847623 B1 to Bowers in view of US 2005/0187800 A1 to Luftig.
Regarding Claim 5, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination of Nista and Bowers does not explicitly teach wherein the step of determining the spending balance comprises: determining a carryover amount; and subtracting the carryover amount from the remaining balance.
Luftig, on the other hand, teaches wherein the step of determining the spending balance comprises: determining a carryover amount; and subtracting the carryover amount from the remaining balance. ([0068] a carryover calculation selection field 662 is provided to allow for the selection for the type of carryover, such as, carryover all the remaining balance, carry over the lesser of the remaining balance or a maximum carryover amount, carryover the lesser of a remaining balance or the sum of the maximum carryover amount plus a prior years carryover, no carryover, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as taught by Nista and Bowers to include the features as taught by Luftig. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination in order to avoid unused funds at the end of the year (Luftig, [0005]).
Claim 13 is a computer program product claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 20 is a computer system claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 5.
Claims 6-8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140136365 A1 to Nista in view of US 11847623 B1 to Bowers in view of US 2015/0095186 A1 to Mekala.
Regarding Claim 6, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination of Nista and Bowers does not explicitly teach calculating a spending deadline associated with the account; determining an initiation date, wherein the initiation date occurs prior to the spending deadline; and initiating the step of determining that the remaining balance of the account is greater than the predetermined threshold on the initiation date.
Mekala, on the other hand, teaches calculating a spending deadline associated with the account; determining an initiation date, wherein the initiation date occurs prior to the spending deadline; and initiating the step of determining that the remaining balance of the account is greater than the predetermined threshold on the initiation date. ([0050] the payment service provider device or system provider device has also retrieved user FSA balance information 606 for the user FSA that includes a user FSA balance 606a and a time period 606b associated with the forfeiture of the user FSA balance 606a, and has provided the user FSA balance information 606 on the user FSA information screen 600. As discussed above, the user may fund the user FSA with a funding amount (e.g., as detailed in the user FSA funding information 602) that they must then spend by the end of a year (as defined by the user FSA), and the retrieval, determination, and provision of the user FSA balance information 606 allows the user to be quickly and easily informed of their current user FSA balance 606a and the time period 606b in which they must spend that user FSA balance 606a or have it subject to forfeiture. [0051] In the illustrated embodiment, at block 118 the payment service provider device or system provider device has also analyzed the payment detail information associated with the user FSA (e.g., the user FSA payment detail information 604 for the current year of the user FSA, as well as previously purchased payment detail information for previous years in some embodiments) to determine at least one recommended merchant with which the user may wish to spend at least a portion of their user FSA balance 606a before the ending of the time period 606b, and has provided a recommended merchant section 608 on the user FSA information screen 600 along with a contact recommended merchant button 610. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as taught by Nista and Bowers to include the features as taught by Mekala. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination in order to to recognize the benefits of the user FSA (Mekala, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 7, Nista in view of Bowers and Mekala teaches the method of claim 6.
However the combination of Nista and Bowers and Mekala does not explicitly teach wherein the step of calculating the spending deadline comprises: determining a plan year end date; adding a plan grace period to the plan year end date.
Bowers, on the other hand, teaches adding a plan grace period to the end date. ([Col 2 Ln 50-60] displays the amount of (specified) time a customer has to cure an overdraft (such as a grace period))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nista to include the features as taught by Bowers. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Nista in order to provide customers the options to manage their financial accounts (Bowers, [Col 1 Ln 15-20]).
Mekala, on the other hand, teaches wherein the step of calculating the spending deadline comprises: determining a plan year end date; plan year end date; ([0050] the payment service provider device or system provider device has also retrieved user FSA balance information 606 for the user FSA that includes a user FSA balance 606a and a time period 606b associated with the forfeiture of the user FSA balance 606a, and has provided the user FSA balance information 606 on the user FSA information screen 600. As discussed above, the user may fund the user FSA with a funding amount (e.g., as detailed in the user FSA funding information 602) that they must then spend by the end of a year (as defined by the user FSA), and the retrieval, determination, and provision of the user FSA balance information 606 allows the user to be quickly and easily informed of their current user FSA balance 606a and the time period 606b in which they must spend that user FSA balance 606a or have it subject to forfeiture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as taught by Nista and Bowers to include the features as taught by Mekala. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination in order to to recognize the benefits of the user FSA (Mekala, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 8, Nista in view of Bowers teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination of Nista and Bowers does not explicitly teach wherein the account is a flexible spending account.
Mekala, on the other hand, teaches wherein the account is a flexible spending account.. ([0050] the payment service provider device or system provider device has also retrieved user FSA balance information 606 for the user FSA that includes a user FSA balance 606a and a time period 606b associated with the forfeiture of the user FSA balance 606a, and has provided the user FSA balance information 606 on the user FSA information screen 600. As discussed above, the user may fund the user FSA with a funding amount (e.g., as detailed in the user FSA funding information 602) that they must then spend by the end of a year (as defined by the user FSA), and the retrieval, determination, and provision of the user FSA balance information 606 allows the user to be quickly and easily informed of their current user FSA balance 606a and the time period 606b in which they must spend that user FSA balance 606a or have it subject to forfeiture. [0051] In the illustrated embodiment, at block 118 the payment service provider device or system provider device has also analyzed the payment detail information associated with the user FSA (e.g., the user FSA payment detail information 604 for the current year of the user FSA, as well as previously purchased payment detail information for previous years in some embodiments) to determine at least one recommended merchant with which the user may wish to spend at least a portion of their user FSA balance 606a before the ending of the time period 606b, and has provided a recommended merchant section 608 on the user FSA information screen 600 along with a contact recommended merchant button 610. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as taught by Nista and Bowers to include the features as taught by Mekala. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination in order to to recognize the benefits of the user FSA (Mekala, [0052]).
Claim 14 is a computer program product claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 6.
Claim 15 is a computer program product claim that is rejected with the same basis as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights