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 .
Acknowledgements
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed January 29, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-20 are examined below.
Based on a comparison of the PGPub US 2026/0170505 A1 with applicant’s originally submitted specification, the PGPub appears to be a fair and accurate record of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, references to applicant’s specification will typically be made by this examiner as references to the PGPub. Unless otherwise noted, references to applicant’s specification as published via PGPub will be in the format [####], and references to applicant’s specification as filed will be in the format ¶## or by page and line number.
The notations in the immediately preceding paragraph apply to any future office actions from this examiner.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Priority
This application is a continuation application. See MPEP § 201.07. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the prior-filed application(s). Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the prior-filed application(s) are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the prior-filed application(s) need not be resubmitted in this application unless applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, applicant is reminded that the prosecution history of the prior-filed application(s) is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Information Disclosure Statement
The attached information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: where applicant recites “wherein the scheduling data being retrieved and analyzed contemporaneously with the receipt of the expenditure request,” it appears that applicant intends to recite “wherein the scheduling data is retrieved and analyzed contemporaneously with the receipt of the expenditure request” or similar.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites receiving an expenditure request, extracting request attributes, accessing a data source to obtain scheduling data, identifying a rule for the scheduling data, determining compliance with the rule, and instructing whether to commit funds per the expenditure request, which constitutes a certain method of organizing human activity (specifically, a fundamental economic practice, or commercial or legal interaction) or mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements beyond the abstract idea simply link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (networked computers). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements identified above represent only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology (or placeholders for such) when compared with the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Viewing the additional elements as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the additional elements in the claim are not sufficient to amount to an inventive concept. Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and fails to recite an inventive concept, it is patent ineligible.
Independent claims 19 and 20 contain limitations similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitations added by these claims fail to either integrate the claims into a practical application or add an inventive concept, because they serve to further narrow the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application (claims 2-4 and 6-17) or add additional elements that simply further link to a particular technological environment (claims 5 and 18). Viewing the additional elements of the dependent claims as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the dependent claims neither practically integrate the abstract idea nor constitute an inventive concept, and these claims are also rejected as patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph
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 3 and 4 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 claims contain subject matter that 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites an algorithm: “correlating between the obtained market data and the at least one activity attribute.” This algorithm is not explained at all. In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01.I.
Claim 4 recites an algorithm: “correlating between the at least two activity attributes.” This algorithm is not explained at all. In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01.I.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “processing the at least one expenditure request and extracting a plurality of request attributes relating to at least one of: at least one user, … according to an attribute related to the at least one user, accessing …” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The attribute related to the at least one user is introduced as an optional element in the processing step, then the accessing step makes use of this optional element. Is the element optional? Or not? For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting it to be a required element.
Claims 19 and 20 contain language similar to the recitation in claim 1 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claims 19 and 20 are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, applicant’s recitation “correlating between the obtained market data and the at least one activity attribute” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear what would be required to accomplish correlating between market data and an activity attribute. Further, applicant’s specification appears to be silent regarding this. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting this recitation to not further limit the invention.
Regarding claim 4, applicant’s recitation “wherein said determining comprises correlating between the at least two activity attributes” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear what would be required to accomplish correlating between two activity attributes. Further, applicant’s specification appears to be silent regarding this. Finally, there does not appear to be antecedent basis for two activity attributes. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting this recitation to not further limit the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 statute.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20, as understood by the examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidenmiller (US 2016/0117650 A1) in view of Deshmukh (US 2014/0122335 A1).
Weidenmiller discloses a payment system "for receiving a request from a first user for funds from an account related to an organization, determining an organizational level of the user in the organization, determining the fund access privilege of the first user based on the organizational level of the user; and associating a set of fund use privileges for the first user, the set of fund use privileges including an amount of funds available to the user, a type of transactions allowed using the funds and a time period for use of the funds" (Abstract). Weidenmiller discloses at least the following relevant to applicant’s claims:
Claim
Limitation
Weidenmiller
1,19,20
receiving, through said communication network, at least one expenditure request received by a computerized transaction system, said at least one expenditure request requesting a transaction of a value of funds in exchange for at least one product and/or service, and is transmitted by the computerized transaction system to said approval system
"an operation 1812 may receive a request for a transaction from a cardholder where the transaction is related to the event" [0085]
1,19,20
in real-time, before said computerized transaction system committing a transfer of funds requested in said at least one expenditure request: processing the at least one expenditure request and extracting a plurality of request attributes relating to at least one of: at least one user, the value, the funds, the product, the service, a time of reception of the at least one expenditure request and a geographical location of the at least one user
"the payment system receives level 3 enhanced data from the service provider. Level 3 data is a network (Visa, Mastercard) certified process allowing for enhanced transactional data reported separately to the aggregated transaction amount including sales tax, freight amount, duty amount, and line item details (product or service ID, product or service description, quantity, item amount, and unit of measure). The payment system processes the level 3 enhanced data to automatically generate reports and to update accounting and financial systems in a dynamic manner. For example, the level 3 enhanced data allows identifying taxes paid on various transactions by the cardholders, thus simplifying the accounting for the transactions. Furthermore, the level 3 enhanced data provides additional detail about the transaction, such as the type of purchased items (food, entertainment, IT equipment, clothing, medicine, etc.). Additionally, information about the merchant, the location, the time, etc., related to the transaction is also provided." [0043]Time and location are extracted per [0082]. Transaction amount is extracted per [0085]. Also, "if a cardholder has used up her allocated budget for a given period and if such cardholder requires an additional transaction for a product, in such a case, the payment system may require the cardholder to provide a product image before approving the transaction" [0087]
1,19,20
according to an attribute related to the at least one user, accessing, through the communication network, at least one online data source comprising at least one of an electronic calendar, an electronic task list, an electronic itinerary, an email record, a text message record, a voice message record, stored on a remote user resource which is a device and/or a system, and/or a remote organizational scheduling system resource associated with the user
At least calendar, budget, and organizational information are accessed. See Fig. 17 and associated text re organizational information. "operation 1808 associates various cardholders to the budget" ([0084]) Weidenmiller also discusses distributing the computing (see [0094]). It would have been obvious to separate the transaction processing from the calendar and organizational information storage, because such separation of functions can lead to ease of maintainenance and other efficiencies.
1,19,20
obtaining scheduling data indicative of at least one activity attribute of at least one activity scheduled for the at least one user, wherein the at least one activity attribute includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a type of the activity, a time of the activity, a location of the activity and an authorization for the user to engage in the activity
"operation 1804 may also indicate the acceptable range around the hotel that is associated with the event. In such a case, transactions occurring within this range are associated with the event." [0082]. See [0085] for processing of the transaction related to the event.
1,19,20
wherein the scheduling data [is] retrieved and analyzed contemporaneously with the receipt of the expenditure request
Weidenmiller uses the data referenced above to approve transactions in real time, therefore, theis data would be accessed contemporaneously with the receipt of the expenditure request.
1,19,20
identifying at least one expenditure rule predefined for the at least one activity attribute of the at least one user correlating the at least one activity attribute with the at least one product and/or service, prior to fund transfer
See budget, distance, and time rules related to Fig. 18 and associated text.
1,19,20
determining automatically, in real-time, compliance between the plurality of request attributes and the at least one expenditure rule
"operation 1816 either authorizes the transaction or declines the transaction" [0086]
1,19,20
according to the automatically determined compliance, instructing said computerized transaction system whether to automatically commit said transfer of funds
4
wherein said determining comprises correlating between the at least two activity attributes
As noted above, this recitation fails to further limit the claimed invention.
5
wherein the transaction of the funds value includes at least one of: an electronic card transaction and a cryptocurrency transaction
"payment system disclosed herein provides a rule-based engine for managing expenses for organizations using cards issued to members of the organization" [0034]
6
wherein the at least one request attribute relating to the at least one user includes at least one member of a group consisting of: identity of the at least one user, and an expense budget approved for the at least one user
See [0043]
7
wherein the at least one request attribute relating to the funds includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a maximal value of funds available for expenditures, a maximal value of funds available for expenditures per period of time, a maximal value of funds available per user, a maximal value of funds available per product and a maximal value of funds available per service
See [0037]
8
wherein the at least one request attribute relating to the funds includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a maximal value of funds available for expenditures, a maximal value of funds available for expenditures per period of time, a maximal value of funds available per user, a maximal value of funds available per product and a maximal value of funds available per service
See [0037]
9
wherein the at least one request attribute relating to the at least one product includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a type of the product, a category of a vendor of the product and an identity of the vendor
See [0048]
10
wherein the at least one request attribute relating to the at least one service includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a type of the service, a category of a vendor of the service and an identity of the vendor
See [0048]
11
wherein the at least one activity attribute includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a type of the activity, a time of the activity, a location of the activity, and an authorization for the at least one user to engage in the activity
See [0082]
12
wherein the at least one expenditure rule includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a minimal value of funds available in an expense budget, a maximal funds value approved for a single expenditure, a maximal funds value approved for a plurality of expenditures, a maximal funds value approved per time period, authorization of purchase per product, a maximal funds value approved per product, authorization of purchase per service, a maximal funds value approved per service, a maximal funds value approved per activity, a maximal funds value approved for an event consisting of a plurality of activities and a maximal expense value approved for the at least one user
See at least [0083]
13
wherein the at least one expenditure rule includes at least one member of a group consisting of: a rule specifically defined for the at least one user and a general rule defined for a group of users
See [0036] -[0037]
14
wherein the at least one expenditure rule is defined according to at least one expense policy
The origin of the rule amounts to either or both nonfunctional descriptive material and intended use/result, and, therefore fails to distinguish from the prior art. However, see also [0036] - [0037].
15
wherein the at least one expenditure rule is defined according to at least one geographical location
See Fig. 18 and associated text
16
wherein the at least one expenditure rule is defined according to at least one timing characteristic
See Fig. 18 and associated text
17
wherein the response includes approval of the at least one expenditure request in case of compliance and rejection in case of incompliance
"operation 1816 either authorizes the transaction or declines the transaction" [0086]
18
wherein the transaction in exchange for the at least one product and/or service is done using at least one digital card issued to the at least one user
"electronic card" [0035]
Weidenmiller fails to explicitly disclose but Deshmukh teaches:
Claim
Limitation
Deshmukh
1,19,20
according to an attribute related to the at least one user, accessing, through the communication network, at least one online data source comprising at least one of an electronic calendar, an electronic task list, an electronic itinerary, an email record, a text message record, a voice message record, stored on a remote user resource which is a device and/or a system, and/or a remote organizational scheduling system resource associated with the user
It is the examiner's position that the separation of transaction request processing from calendar/budget/organizational data storage into separate devices connected via network is obvious in view of Weidenmiller. However, if not obvious in view of Weidenmiller, then this separation of data storage from transaction processing is taught by Deshmukh (see Figs. 2 and 3 and related text). And it would have been obvious to apply this teaching in order to achieve the predictable results of ease of maintenance and scaling.
2
according to an expenditure rule related to the product and/or service, access over said communication network at least one on-line public data source to obtain market data related to the product and/or service, wherein said determining is additionally based on the obtained market data
"upon receiving a request for evaluation of an authorization the evaluator or related support service may: ... (c) monitor market conditions. Using these or other metrics, when a request for authorization for a personal transaction or expense is received at an evaluator, may authorize or deny or suggest alternatives to an expenditure or transaction. The status of the evaluator's response may serve to block or allow access for the actual financial transaction to proceed" [0019] - [0020]
3
wherein said determining comprises correlating between the obtained market data and the at least one activity attribute
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Weidenmiller to include the use of market data of Deshmukh in order to achieve the predictable result of improving financial performance of the organization using the system.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johndrow (US 2015/0081349 A1) discloses a system for real-time authorization based on a user's location. A location indicator can be provided to an issuer (145) for authorization decisions ([0036]). System also accesses user travel info (607). An intermediary transaction handler (103) determines whether to award a benefit based on satisfaction of conditions.
Steinlicht (US 2017/0011399 A1) discloses a rules-based system for locking and unlocking payment vehicles. See the office action dated July 1, 2025 for a mapping of Steinlicht to claims in application 18/232,387.
Verma (US 2022/0114676 A1) discloses a system automatically detecting fraud and compliance issues in expense reports and invoices using machine learning.
Tai (US 2013/0232045 A1) discloses a system for automatically identifying outlier transactions using k-means clustering.
Mullen (US 2008/0027860 A1) discloses a system for determining which of authorized transactions require further processing for determining compliance with a payment program. The compliance determination does not appear to be performed in real time.
Priess (US 2015/0026027 A1) discloses a real-time fraud detection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights