Patent Application 18404755 - USING COGNITIVE COMPUTING TO PROVIDE TARGETED

Title: USING COGNITIVE COMPUTING TO PROVIDE TARGETED OFFERS FOR PREFERRED PRODUCTS TO A USER VIA A MOBILE DEVICE
Application Information

Invention Title: USING COGNITIVE COMPUTING TO PROVIDE TARGETED OFFERS FOR PREFERRED PRODUCTS TO A USER VIA A MOBILE DEVICE
Application Number: 18404755
Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2024-01-04T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2024-01-04T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 014100
Examiner Employee Number: 81894
Art Unit: 3622
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 6
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text


    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 .

Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 11, 2025 cancelled claims 2, 5, 7-8, 15 and 19.  Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 were amended and new claims 21-26 were added.  Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-26.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: As per MPEP 211.05(I)(B), a claim in a subsequently filed application that relies on a combination of prior applications may not be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120  since 35 U.S.C. 120  requires that the earlier filed application contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(a)  except for the best mode requirement for each claim in the subsequently filed application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674, 1677 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  In the instant case, at least provisional application 62/332,266 does not have support for at least “training data set”, “machine learning model to determine patterns from consumer characteristics that correspond to consumer shopping habits”, “user shopping profile identifies a preferred merchant of the user and a preferred product of the user”, and/or “a communication associated with a preferred product…associated with the preferred merchant”.  Thus, the earliest prior date for which the current application can be granted is the filing date of Application 15/498,828 which is April 27, 2017.
Should the applicant desire an earlier priority date than April 27, 2017, the applicant is required to identify which one single provisional application of provisional applications 62/332,226; 62/338,749; 62/338,752; 62/341,677; 62/436,899; or 62/436,883 has support for each and every limitation of the claims by mapping each limitation to a specific paragraph is said provisional application. The mapping provided in the Applicant’s Arguments filed on February 11, 2025 has been reviewed and the examiner has determined that the cited sections in provisional application 62/338,752 do not support at least “generating, by the computing system, and in a profile generation mode, a shopping profile of the user by:” performing the claimed steps; “changing, by the computing system, from the profile generation mode to a communication mode in response to” the recited steps; and “based on changing to the communication mode” performing the claimed steps.  The disclosure of provisional application 62/338,752 recites no specific operating modes much less a profile generation mode or a communication mode. The disclosure appears to support different parts of a program that perform the profiling steps claimed, the receipt of location data, determining the mobile device is currently within a geofence of a merchant, determining that the merchant is a preferred merchant, determining if any of the current offers are preferred offers of the preferred merchant and if so, transmitting the preferred offers of the preferred merchant to the customers mobile device in at least paragraphs 52-53, 63, 80, 139-141, and 144-145.  However, nowhere is it disclosed that the computing system changes from a profile generation mode to a communication mode much less doing so based on receiving the location data, and determining that the mobile device is currently with the geofence or once changing to a communication mode performing the steps of selecting the communication and transmitting the communication. As such, the supplied mappings have not successfully resulted in the granting of an earlier priority date.  Therefore, the earliest prior date for which the current application can be granted is the filing date of Application 15/498,828 which is April 27, 2017.

Claim Interpretation
The amendment to independent claims 1, 13, and 17 have moved the client application and its functions within the scope of the applicant’s invention. 

Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on February 11, 2025 has overcome the Double Patenting rejection.  Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on February 11, 2025 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 6.  Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 
First, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended to recite: “generating, by the computing system, and in a profile generation mode, a shopping profile of the user by:” performing specific steps; “changing, by the computing system, from the profile generation mode to a communication mode, in response to:” performing specific steps; and “based on changing to the communication mode:” performing specific steps or to recite limitations with similar scope.  The examiner can find no support in the applicant’s disclosure for a computer system that has, operates in, or performs specific steps in different specific modes much less a computer system that performs specific steps to initiate a change from one mode to another. As such, it is clear that independent claims 1, 13, and 17, as amended, fail to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-26 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.  For the purpose of prosecuting the claim, the examiner is going to consider “generating, by the computing system, and in a profile generation mode, a shopping profile of the user by:” as if it recited “generating, by the computing system, a shopping profile of the user be:”; “changing, by the computing system, from the profile generation mode to a communication mode, in response to:” as if it recited “determining that the mobile device is currently within a geofence of the preferred merchant by:”; and “based on changing to the communication mode:” as if it recited “selecting and transmitting communication by:”. 
Second, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended to recite: “transmitting, by the computing system, the communication to the client application executing on the mobile device; and causing, by the computing system, the client application to display the communication via the mobile device.” or to recite limitations with similar scope.  The examiner notes that this appears to indicate that “causing, by the computing system, the client application to display the communication via the mobile device” is a step that is separate and distinct from the previous limitation of “transmitting, by the computing system, the communication to the client application executing on the mobile device” that appears subsequent to said transmitting.  The examiner has been unable to support for “the computing system” to cause the client application executing on the mobile device to perform any functions after the computing system has transmitted the communication. Paragraph 35 of the applicant’s specification supports “transmitting, by the computing system, the communication to the client application executing on the mobile device, thereby causing the client application to display the communication via the mobile device”.  However, this is an intended result of the transmitting step and not a separate step of “causing, by the computing system, the client application to display the communication via the mobile device”.  Paragraph 47 of the applicant’s specification supports “causing, by the client application, the mobile device to display the communication” after the communication is transmitted by the computing system and received at the mobile device.  However, this causing is performed by the client application and not the computing system as claimed.  Thus, the examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s disclosure of “the computing system” causing the client application to perform any step after the computing system has transmitted already the communication much less causing “the client application to display the communication via the mobile device”.  As such, it is clear that independent claims 1, 13, and 17, as amended, fail to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-26 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.  For the purpose of prosecuting the claim, the examiner is going to consider interpret these two distinct steps as if they were a single step with an intended result such that the limitations are interpreted as: “transmitting, by the computing system, the communication to the client application executing on the mobile device, thereby resulting in the client application to displaying the communication via the mobile device”.

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, 3-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are directed to a method, a system, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).  
However, claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 17 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Note: the user device itself, network, and financial institution have been included as part of the abstract idea because they are outside the scope of the invention and, as such, cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention)
periodically providing, from the mobile device via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device;
generating a shopping profile of the user by:
receiving, from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants;
 identifying user characteristics of a user, based at least in part on the financial information; and 
generating the shopping profile based on the user characteristics, wherein the shopping profile identifies a preferred merchant of the user and a preferred product of the user; 
receiving, from mobile device, the location data indicating the geographic location of the mobile device; and 
determining, based on the location data, that the mobile device is currently within a geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant; and
selecting a communication associated with the preferred product from among a set of communications associated with the preferred merchant; 
transmitting the communication to the mobile device thereby causing display of the communication via the mobile device.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising, marketing, or sales related activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of: 
one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions (e.g., personalized banking engine): (general-purpose computer with generic computer components); 
a GPS unit (a location acquisition unit) on a mobile device (mobile devices and GPS units on said mobile devices were well-understood, routine and conventional mobile device by at least April 6, 2011 as evidenced by Bansal et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0258726) in paragraphs 26 and 39 and, as such are generic computer components); 
a client application executing background processes on mobile devices (a client application executing a background process on a mobile device for location services was well understood routine and conventional by at least 2015 as evidenced from Fernandez et al. (Location Services. In: Beginning App Development with Parse and Phonegap 2015. Apress, Berkeley, CA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0235-7_9; pages 195-222) on at least page 204 and figure 9-4, and, as such are generic computer components) and 
a machine learning model: (e.g., generic computer component as evidenced from Langley et al. (“Approaches to Machine Learning”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, February 16, 1984, pgs. 1-28) on at least page 7, lines 23-29 which discloses that machine learning models are well-understood, routine and conventional by at least 1984).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying: 
periodically providing, from the mobile device via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device (transmitting data);
receiving, from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants (receiving data);
receiving, from mobile device, the location data indicating the geographic location of the mobile device (receiving data); and 
transmitting the communication to the mobile device thereby causing display of the communication via the mobile device (transmitting data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. 
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing instructions to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components.
 “Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation.  Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. 
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components (as evidenced from the applicant’s specification in at least paragraphs 32, 60-61 and 194-200 which discloses that the computer is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components and paragraphs 64-68 which discloses that the applicant is using a well-known machine learning model and not a new machine learning model invented by the applicant; and at least page 7, lines 23-29 of Langley et al. (“Approaches to Machine Learning”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, February 16, 1984, pgs. 1-28) which discloses that machine learning models were old and well known by at least 1984); Bansal et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0258726) which discloses in a least paragraphs 26 and 39 that mobile devices and GPS units on said mobile devices were well-known by at least April 6, 2011; and Fernandez et al. (Location Services. In: Beginning App Development with Parse and Phonegap 2015. Apress, Berkeley, CA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0235-7_9; pages 195-222) which discloses on at least page 204 and figure 9-4 that client applications executing a background process on a mobile device for location services was well-known by at least 2015), and, as such are generic computer components); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data: 
periodically providing, from the mobile device via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device (transmitting data);
receiving, from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants (receiving data);
receiving, from mobile device, the location data indicating the geographic location of the mobile device (receiving data); and 
transmitting the communication to the mobile device thereby causing display of the communication via the mobile device (transmitting data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9-12; 14, 16; 18, and 20-26 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding additional steps regarding receiving login credential and receiving financial information from a financial institution based on the login credentials which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 3); adding an additional step of receiving additional user information, identifying user characteristics based on the additional user information, and generating the shopping profile based on the user characteristic indicated by the additional user information which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 4, 14, and 18); adding an additional step of obtaining user provided permissions which is considered part of the abstract idea, and an additional element of the client application on the mobile device executing at least in part as a background process which has already been addressed above (Claim 6); further limiting the shopping profile  and selection of the communication which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 9-10, 16, and 20); further limiting the communication which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 11); and adding the additional steps of determining, based on at least one of the shopping profile or the financial information, that at least a predetermined amount of time has passed and further limiting the designated payment type both of which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 12); adding an additional step of an algorithm trained on a plurality of profiles being used to generate the shopping profile which is considered part of the abstract idea and introducing an additional element that is aa machine learning model which has already been addressed above (Claim 21 and 25-26); further limiting the receipt of the user-provided permissions which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 22); further limiting how the location information is accessed or received which is considered part of the abstract idea and adding an additional element of a location acquisition unit such as a GPS unit of the mobile device which has already been addressed above (Claim 23); and further limiting the way a determination that the user is currently within the geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant is made which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 24),   and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..  
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are not patent eligible.

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 (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) 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.  
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.

Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 13-14, 16-18, 20-21, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0156395) in view of Bondesen et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0254699) in further view of Zeto (PGPUB: 2013/0275198).

Claims 1, 6, 13, and 17: Argue discloses a computer-implemented method, a computing system, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media associated with a personalized banking engine computing system configured to provide a targeted communication based on a location of a mobile device associated with a user comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps (Paragraphs 11-14) of: 
providing, by the computing system, a client application that executes on the mobile device, wherein the client application is configured to: execute at least in part as a background process on the mobile device, and periodically, based on user-provided permission, provide, from the mobile device to the computer system via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device;
Argue discloses an application installed on a customer mobile computing device that communicates with an application server and receiving, by a computing system, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants in at least paragraphs 15-16, 20-21 and 33.
Argue does not disclose providing, by the computing system, a client application that executes on the mobile device, wherein the client application is configured to: execute at least in part as a background process on the mobile device, and periodically provide, based on user-provided permission from the mobile device to the computer system via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device; and receiving, by a computing system from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants .
However, the analogous art of Bondesen discloses that it is well known to provide, by the computing system, a client application that executes on the mobile device, wherein the client application is configured to: execute at least in part as a background process on the mobile device, and periodically, based on user-provided permission, provide, from the mobile device to the computer system via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device; and receiving, by a computing system from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants in at least paragraphs 44-45, 52, 69, 99, 105, 123, and 135.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue to include providing, by the computing system, a client application that executes on the mobile device, wherein the client application is configured to: execute at least in part as a background process on the mobile device, and periodically provide, from the mobile device to the computer system via a network, location data indicating a geographic location of the mobile device as disclosed by Bondesen.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires the use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way.  Argue discloses the base application operating on the mobile device that displays marketing messages and transaction receipts.  Bondesen discloses a comparable application operating on the mobile device that displays marketing messages and transactions as well as provides an improvement with regards to providing a user with the ability to complete transactions and imposing location restraints on said transactions. One or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of the application in Bondesen to the base system of Argue for the predicted result of improved application functionality and convenience to the user.  
generating, by the computing system, and in a profile generation mode, a shopping profile of the user by: 
receiving, from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants (Bondesen: Paragraphs 44-45);
identifying user characteristics of a user, based at least in part on the financial information on user (Argue: Paragraph 22-27: monitoring the type of product or service sold to the customer; identify changes in trends such as purchasing less expensive or more expensive food items than usual, changes to the location of the retailer the customer usually shops at; a new trend of purchasing items associated with home ownership, childcare or a different gender than normally purchased); and 
generating the shopping profile based on the user characteristics, (Argue: Paragraph 28: correlate the user to the lifestyle change based on the patterns with the known socioeconomic or demographic condition linked to that pattern or behavior using the machine learning model to identifying purchasing patterns that have higher degrees of correlation to specific demographic and socioeconomic classifications of the customers by looking for such identified patterns or behaviors); 
changing, by the computing system, from the profile generation mode to a communication mode, in response to 
wherein the user shopping profile identifies a preferred merchant of the user and a preferred product of the user; determining, based on the location data, that the geographic location of the user device is within a geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant; selecting, based on determining that the location data is within the geofence, a communication associated with the preferred product from among a set of communications associated with the preferred merchant; and 
Argue and Bondesen discloses that the shopping profile identifies the products a user regularly purchases and merchants that a user regularly shops at in at least paragraphs 23-24 of Argue; and selecting a communication associated with a product from among a set of communications associated with a merchant in at least paragraph 21 of Argue.
Argue and Bondesen do not disclose wherein that the merchant is a preferred merchant of the user, and the product is a preferred product of the user; determining, based on the location data, that the geographic location of the user device is within a geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant; selecting, based on determining that the location data is within the geofence, a communication associated with the preferred product from among a set of communications associated with the preferred merchant.
However the analogous art of Zeto discloses that it is well-known for a user to opt-in to location tracking and for a user shopping profile to identify a preferred merchant of the user and a preferred product of the user and to perform the steps of determining, based on the location data from a GPS unit of the mobile device, that the geographic location of the user device is within a geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant; and selecting, based on determining that the location data is within the geofence, a communication associated with the preferred product from among a set of communications associated with the preferred merchant in at least paragraphs 24-25, 32, 53, 55, 60-62, 66, and 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue and Bondesen to include the ability to opt-in to location tracking and identify a preferred merchant of the user and a preferred product of the user in the user shopping profile and to perform the steps of determining, based on the location data from a GPS unit of the mobile device, that the geographic location of the user device is within a geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant; and selecting, based on determining that the location data is within the geofence, a communication associated with the preferred product from among a set of communications associated with the preferred merchant as disclosed by Zeto.
The motivation for doing so is to effectively distribute marketing content to the mobile devices of consumers that graph the attention of the consumer while they are at or in proximity of a physical retail location (Zeto – Paragraph 10)
receiving, from a user device associated with the user, location data indicating a geographic location of the user device (Argue: Paragraphs 16 and 21: recording the geographic location of a transaction based on geo-fencing via a mobile app; Bondesen: Paragraphs 52: user device providing geographic location of the user device to a computing system); 
causing the communication to be transmitted to the user device, thereby causing the client application to display the communication via the mobile device (Argue - Paragraph 21: marketing messaging system is adapted to identify significant changes in a customer's life, especially those that may indicate how the customer may respond to various marketing schemes, and to adjust the marketing messaging for that customer; such marketing messaging may be presented to the customer on the customer's smartphone app; Bondesen: Paragraphs 99 and 105: user device receives pushed offers, stores the offers, determines an offer to display, and displays the offer).

Claims 4, 14, and 18: Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto disclose the method of claim 1, the computing system of claim 13 and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, further comprising in the profile generation mode: receiving from one or more data sources additional user information comprising at least one of: social media information associated with the user, web browsing habits of the user, retailer data associated with the user, an income level associated with the user, assets owned by the user, or mortgage loan information associated with the user; identify the user characteristics base at least in part on the additional user information, and generate the shopping profile of the user based at least in part on the user characteristics indicated by the additional user information. (Argue - Paragraph 16-18: user information includes transaction data, wherein the data includes financial transaction information such as the customer's credit or debit card number (which, inherently, was provided to the customer by a financial institution) and other retailer data associated with the user such as product(s) purchased (assets owned), including universal product codes (“UPC”) or other product codes, service(s) purchased, the price paid for each product or service, the CIN, the date and time, and other relevant information about the transaction; Paragraph 30: user information obtained in connection with customers use of smartphone app, such as browsing product descriptions, viewing electronic receipts, or viewing other media from the retailer;  Paragraph 15: analyze those purchase habits, identify any significant changes or events in the customers' lives, and present a marketing messaging strategy that is tailored for the customer in response to the identified changes; Paragraphs 19, 22-29: purchase tracking module generates a shopping profile based on, for example, the user shopping regularly at different store branch than the one they usually shopped at)

Claims 9, 16, and 20: Argue, Bondesen and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computing system of claim 13, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein: the shopping profile further indicates a predicted life event associated with the user, and the communication is selected based at least in part on the predicted life event. (Argue -Paragraph 19: user account database includes inferred lifestyle changes such as graduation from secondary education (commonly known as high school) or higher education, getting a new job, losing a job, receiving a promotion and/or pay increase, getting married, birth or adoption of a child, death of a family member, and getting divorced; Paragraph 20: marketing message module can direct a tailored marketing scheme for the customer based on any lifestyle change alerts received from purchase habit tracking module)

Claims 21, 25, and 26: Argue, Bondesen and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computing system of claim 13, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the computing system is configured to use a cognitive computing system, comprising a machine learning model trained on a plurality of profiles associated with a plurality of users, to generate the shopping profile of the user. (Argue: Paragraph 28: purchase habit tracking module, employing machine-learning, is adapted to look for identified patterns or behaviors and correlate the patterns with the known socioeconomic or demographic condition based on training data consisting of socioeconomic, demographic, and like data regarding a test group of customers, wherein purchase histories of those customers may then be analyzed and patterns identified and correlated to specific lifestyle changes)

Claim 23: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the client application is configured to receive or access information, indicating the geographic location of the mobile device, from a location acquisition unit of the mobile device. (Zeto: Paragraphs 32, 66, and 72: the location information is received from the mobile devices GPS unit (e.g, location acquisition unit)

Claim 24: The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining that the mobile device is currently within the geofence corresponding to the preferred merchant comprises
comparing, by the computing system, the geographic location of the mobile device indicated by the location data against a plurality of geofences associated with a plurality of merchants (Zeto: Paragraphs 24-25: determining offers to send to a subscriber based on determining that the location of a subscribers mobile device has entered a geofence of a particular property based on a geofence established for said particular property, as well as, subscriber-defined preferences, and business rules software, Paragraph 53: subscriber-defined preferences include offer preferences and retailer preferences; and Paragraphs 60-62: comparing the current location to geofence data of offers stored in a database, identifying a particular offer based on subscriber offer preferences and that the user is within the geofence of a particular retailer, and providing the offer to a subscriber within the geofence area; Argue: Paragraph 16: identifying a customer through geo-fencing via a mobile app; Bondesen: Paragraph 52: obtaining geographic location information of the mobile device from an app executing on the mobile device; Paragraphs 90 and 111: limiting transactions to a specific radius around a specified point such as a merchant (e.g., a geofence));
identifying, by the computing system, the geofence of the plurality of geofences that encompasses the geographic location of the mobile device (Zeto: Paragraphs 24-25: determining offers to send to a subscriber based on determining that the location of a subscribers mobile device has entered a geofence of a particular property based on a geofence established for said particular property, as well as, subscriber-defined preferences, and business rules software, Paragraph 53: subscriber-defined preferences include offer preferences and retailer preferences; and Paragraphs 60-62: comparing the current location to geofence data of offers stored in a database, identifying a particular offer based on subscriber offer preferences and that the user is within the geofence of a particular retailer, and providing the offer to a subscriber within the geofence area; Argue: Paragraph 16: identifying a customer through geo-fencing via a mobile app; Bondesen: Paragraph 52: obtaining geographic location information of the mobile device from an app executing on the mobile device; Paragraphs 90 and 111: limiting transactions to a specific radius around a specified point such as a merchant (e.g., a geofence)); and 
determining, by the computing system, that a merchant associated with the geofence is the preferred merchant indicated by the shopping profile of the user. (Zeto: Paragraphs 24-25: determining offers to send to a subscriber based on determining that the location of a subscribers mobile device has entered a geofence of a particular property based on a geofence established for said particular property, as well as, subscriber-defined preferences, and business rules software, Paragraph 53: subscriber-defined preferences include offer preferences and retailer preferences; and Paragraphs 60-62: comparing the current location to geofence data of offers stored in a database, identifying a particular offer based on subscriber offer preferences and that the user is within the geofence of a preferred retailer, and providing the offer to a subscriber within the geofence area)

Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0156395) in view of Bondesen et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0254699) in view of Zeto (PGPUB: 2013/0275198) in further view of Thomas et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0314194).

Claim 3: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, and from the client application based on user input provided by the user via the mobile device, user login credentials associated with the at least one financial institution; wherein the computing system receives, the financial information from the at least one financial institution based on the user login credentials. 
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. 
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto do not disclose receiving, by the computing system, and from the client application based on user input provided by the user via the mobile device, user login credentials associated with the at least one financial institution; wherein the computing system receives, the financial information from the at least one financial institution based on the user login credentials.
However, the analogous art of Thomas discloses that it is well known to perform the steps of: receiving, by the computing system, and from the client application based on user input provided by the user via the mobile device, user login credentials associated with the at least one financial institution; wherein the computing system receives, the financial information from the at least one financial institution based on the user login credentials in at least paragraphs 2-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue, Bondesen and Zeto to include receiving, by the computing system, and from the client application based on user input provided by the user via the mobile device, user login credentials associated with the at least one financial institution; wherein the computing system receives, the financial information from the at least one financial institution based on the user login credentials as disclosed by Thomas.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predicable results. The Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto references, as combined, disclose obtaining the financial transaction information from the POS.  The sole difference between the Argue, Zeto and Bondesen references, as combined, and the claimed subject matter is the primary reference does not disclose obtaining the financial transaction information from the financial institution based on user login credential provided to the system by the user.  The Thomas reference discloses that receiving user login credential from a user to access financial transaction information from a financial institution was known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of obtaining financial transaction information from the financial institution based on user login credential of the Thomas references for the obtaining financial transaction information from the POS of the Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto references, as combined.  Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.

Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0156395) in view of Bondesen et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0254699) in view of Zeto (PGPUB: 2013/0275198) in further view of Dev et al. (PGPUB: 2004/0054587).

Claim 10: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the shopping profile, generated by the computing system, is customizable by the user. 
Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. 
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto do not disclose wherein the user shopping profile, generated by the computing system, is customizable by the user.
However, the analogous art of Dev discloses that it is well known to make a user shopping profile, generated by the computing system, customizable by the user in at least paragraph 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue, Bondesen and Zeto to include making a user shopping profile, generated by the computing system, customizable by the user as disclosed by Dev.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires the use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way.  The Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto references, as combined, teach the “base” method of implementing a user shopping profile by gathering user information and inferring further user information. The Dev reference teaches a “comparable” method of implementing a user shopping profile that offers an improvement in that the user can edit the profile to change personal information based on their current situation and/or correct any inferences that are not accurate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of the user shopping profile of Dev to the base method of Argue, Bondesen and Zeto for the predicted result of improving the accuracy of information in the user shopping profile so that the most relevant offers can be selected.  

Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0156395) in view of Bondesen et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0254699) in view of Zeto (PGPUB: 2013/0275198) in further view of Beatty et al. (PGPUB: 2016/0125449).

Claim 11: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the communication comprises at least one of: an offer of reward points for completing a purchase of the preferred product within a designated amount of time, with a designated payment type, or with a loan product, or an indication of pricing for a bundle of products offered by the preferred merchant. (Beatty – Paragraph 76)
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1. 
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto do not disclose wherein the communication comprises at least one of: an offer of reward points for completing a purchase of the preferred product within a designated amount of time, with a designated payment type, or with a loan product, or an indication of pricing for a bundle of products offered by the preferred merchant.
However, the analogous art of Beatty discloses that it is well known for offers to be at least one of an offer of reward points for completing a purchase of the preferred product within a designated amount of time, with a designated payment type, or with a loan product, or an indication of pricing for a bundle of products offered by the preferred merchant in at least paragraph 76.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue, Bondesen and Zeto to include offers that are at least one of an offer of reward points for completing a purchase of the preferred product within a designated amount of time, with a designated payment type, or with a loan product, or an indication of pricing for a bundle of products offered by the preferred merchant as disclosed by Beatty.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of different known types of offers that are normally selected and provided to a user and offers that are at least one of an offer of reward points for completing a purchase of the preferred product within a designated amount of time, with a designated payment type, or with a loan product, or an indication of pricing for a bundle of products offered by the preferred merchant are ones of said predictable types of offers.

Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0156395) in view of Bondesen et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0254699) in view of Zeto (PGPUB: 2013/0275198) in view of Beatty et al. (PGPUB: 2016/0125449) in further view of Vergari et al. (PGPUB: 2016/0224964).

Claim 12: The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: determining, by the computing system, and based on at least one of the user shopping profile or the user information, that at least a predetermined amount of time has passed since the user last used a particular financial account, wherein the designated payment type is associated with the particular financial account. 
Argue, Bondesen, Zeto, and Beatty disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 11. 
Argue, Zeto, Bondesen and Beatty do not disclose determining, by the computing system, and based on at least one of the shopping profile or the financial information, that at least a predetermined amount of time has passed since the user last used a particular financial account, wherein the designated payment type is associated with the particular financial account.
However, the analogous art of Vergari discloses that it is well known to determine, by the computing system, and based on at least one of the shopping profile or the financial information, that at least a predetermined amount of time has passed since the user last used a particular financial account, wherein the designated payment type is associated with the particular financial account in at least paragraphs 12, 14, and 54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue, Bondesen, Zeto, and Beatty to include determining, by the computing system, and based on at least one of the shopping profile or the financial information, that at least a predetermined amount of time has passed since the user last used a particular financial account, wherein the designated payment type is associated with the particular financial account as disclosed by Vergari.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught by the combination of Argue, Bondesen, Zeto, and Beatty, as currently combined, or Vergari.  Selecting and presenting offers based on the amount of time that has passed since the user last used a particular financial account (taught by Vergari) does not change nor effect the normal function of selecting and presenting relevant offers as taught by the combination of Argue, Bondesen, Zeto, and Beatty as all of the steps would be performed in the same way irrespective of where the type of offers selected. Since the functionalities of the elements in Argue, Bondesen, Zeto, and Beatty, as currently combined, and Vergari do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.

Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0156395) in view of Bondesen et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0254699) in view of Zeto (PGPUB: 2013/0275198) in further view of Begin et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0031326).

Claim 22: The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the client application is configured to receive the user-provided permission, from the user, during a registration phase upon at least one of an installation or initial launch of the client application on the mobile device.
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the client application executing on a mobile device, such as a smartphone is configured to receive the user-provided permission, from the user and to change the permissions at any time in at least paragraph 15 of Argue; paragraphs 35 and 69 of Bondesen; and paragraphs 24-25, 53 and 55 of Zeto.
Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto do not disclose that the received user-provided permissions, from the user are provided during a registration phase upon at least one of an installation or initial launch of the client application on the mobile device.
However, the analogous art of Begin discloses that it is well-known to obtain user-provided app permission during a registration phase upon at least one of an installation or initial launch of the client application on the mobile device in at least paragraphs 33 and 72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto to receive the user-provided permission during a registration phase upon at least one of an installation or initial launch of the client application on the mobile device as disclosed by Begin.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of different times that are normally used for obtaining initial user-provided application permissions associated with an application executing on a mobile device such as a smartphone and obtaining such permissions upon installation or initial launch of said application is one such predictable time. 

Claim 23: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the client application is configured to receive or access information, indicating the geographic location of the mobile device, from a location acquisition unit of the mobile device.
Argue, Bondesen and Zeto disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the client application is configured to receive or access information, indicating the geographic location of the mobile device in at least paragraph 16 of Argue; paragraph 52 of Bondesen; and paragraphs 24-25, 53, 55 of Zeto.
Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto are silent with regard to how the client application obtained this location data.  As such Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto do not disclose that the geographic location information of the client application is received or accessed from a location acquisition unit of the mobile device.
However, the analogous art of Begin discloses that it is well-known to obtain user-provided app permission during a registration phase upon at least one of an installation or initial launch of the client application on the mobile device in at least paragraphs 23, 33, 39, 68, and 72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto such that the geographic location of the mobile device is received or accessed from a location acquisition unit of the mobile device as disclosed by Begin.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of different ways for a client application on a mobile device, such as a smartphone, to obtain geographic location information of the mobile devices and obtaining the information a GPS unit and/or other location service units of the mobile device is one such predictable way of obtaining such information. 

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 
The applicant argues, in regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the “additional elements” of the claim as a whole into a practical application. The applicant asserts that there are numerous “additional elements” beyond the alleged abstract idea.  The examiner disagrees.  As indicated in the rejection above a client application executing on a mobile device that executes at least partially as a background process for performing location services is well-understood routine and conventional As such, the  client application on the mobile device executing at least partially as a background process is incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.  The actual steps of receiving and providing the geographic location information is part of the abstract idea and would normally be performed by a client device communicating with a server.  As such, the mobile device performing the claimed steps of the abstract idea would not result in an improvement to the way in which such an arrangement of devices would typically operate.  The applicant’s argument with regard to changing modes being an additional element is not convincing.  First, there is no support in the applicant’s specification any type of mode changes.  The applicant’s specification merely recites performing the steps recited in the various modes without indicating they are dedicated modes that the software changes between.  Second, even if there were support for such mode changes the mode changes would be pure functions of software execution on a general-purpose computer which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application.  Finally, each of the argued functions being performed in said modes are merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer and generic computer components which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.   Since the steps being performed are part of the abstract idea which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer and generic computer components the purported improvement is not rooted in the “additional elements”.  Additional elements are defined as those elements outside the identified abstract idea itself. Any purported improvement obtained by the claim invention is an improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea itself and, as such, is an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms.  Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.  An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).  When formulating the 35 USC 101 rejection, examiner has identified each “additional element” (those elements outside the abstract idea itself) and determine that each of the additional elements are either general-purpose computers or generic computer components.  Additionally, the examiner has considered the specific functions of each element when considered as a whole and determined that neither the additional elements themselves nor the specific arrangement of devices and their respective functions as a whole result in an improvement rooted in the “additional elements”.  As such, the rejection has been maintained.
The applicant argues, with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection, that the claim overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b because the “additional elements” amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.  The examiner disagrees. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b, the “additional elements” themselves must be considered significantly more.  Additional elements are defined as those elements outside the identified abstract idea.  In the instant case, each and every additional element has been found to be well-known as evidenced from the cited references and the applicant’s specification.  As such, the additional elements amount to no more than general-purpose computers and generic computer components which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2b.  Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
The applicant argues, with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection, that the prior art of Argue, Zeto, and Bondesen does not disclose a computing system that receives “from at least one financial institution, financial information indicating transactions between the user and a plurality of merchants,” identifies “user characteristics of the user based at least in part on the financial information,” and generates a shopping profile of the user “based on the user characteristics” identified using the financial information received from the “at least one financial institutions.  The examiner disagrees.  It is clear from the cited sections in the rejection above that the issuing financial institution operating the claimed system receives from the acquiring financial institution financial information indicating transactions between the users and the various merchants, then identified characteristics of the use based at least in part on the financial information and generates a shopping profile of the user based on these characteristics.  Thus, the argued limitations are clearly taught by the Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto references as currently combined.  Additionally, the applicant argues that the Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto reference do not disclose a client device that executes as a background process on a user device and that provides location data indicating the geographic location of the user device to another computer.  The examiner disagrees.  A background process is merely a computer process that runs independently of the user interface, meaning it does not require user intervention to function.  It is clear from at least paragraphs 99 and 105 of Bondesen that shared information and/or supplemental offers are pushed to the client application, stored, and then the application can determine one of these stored shared information or supplemental offers to communicate to the user. The receipt and storage of such information and then later displaying said information satisfied the above definition of a background process.  Paragraph 52 of Bondesen discloses the use of API for providing additional information that is not already provided through the normal transaction processing channel to a second computing system such as geographic location information and makes no mention of the user needing user interaction in order to function.  The use of APIs to provide such additional information also satisfies the definition of a background process.  As such, it is clear that the combination of Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto disclose a client application, executing at least partially as a background process, on user device providing location information to another computing device.  The Examiner is confused as to the applicant’s argument regarding Bondesen disclosing providing financial information to the financial institution that created the wallet.  As combined, the Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto references disclose that the issuing financial institution computing system is providing the application to the client device in the same manner as the applicant’s claimed computing system provided the application to the mobile device.  Thus, the application providing this location information to the computer system of the issuing financial institution.  It is the acquiring financial institution, in the Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto references as combined, that provides the financial information comprising transaction data to the issuing financial institution. Thus, the combination is clearly obvious.  As each of the argued limitations is clearly taught by the combination of Argue, Bondesen, and Zeto as indicated above, the rejection has been maintained.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 
Simmons (PGPUB: 2013/0166386) which discloses using user location information and user profile information, such input user preferences including specific merchants from which they would like to receive offers, to select and provide targeted offers to users when they are within a geographic proximity of said merchants. 
Root et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0279015) which discloses selecting and providing location-based advertisement to users when they are in geographic proximity to a merchant, wherein the advertisement is selected based on determined shopping habits and user profile information that is either inferred or input by the user
Blume et al. (PGPUB: 6,839,682) which discloses using predictive modeling of consumer financial behavior to determine user interests and preferences based on financial transaction information and using this information to select and provide targeted advertisements to said users.

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.





/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622