DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
112 Rejection:
Applicant asserts that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 112(a), citing to Paras. [00420-00421] of the originally filed specification as support for the limitation reciting: “wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is user authenticated, wherein user authentication of the consumer modifiable payment card enables the consumer modifiable payment card both for use with a consumer’s device and use without the consumer’s device”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paras. [00420-00421] of the originally filed specification discloses as follows:
[00420] The disclosed consumer modifiable card 1110 provides multiple mechanisms for accomplishing a payment transaction: swiping the magnetic stripe 1116, swiping rewritable magnetic stripe 1117, using the NFC chip 1115, using the wireless communicator 1119, using the smart chip 1118, or transactions involving combinations. In locations where information security of a magnetic stripe is of a high concern, payment information may be used on the NFC chip 1115, the wireless communicator 1119, or the smart chip 1118 of the consumer modifiable card 1110. In locations where information security of an NFC chip 1115, a wireless communicator 1119, or a smart chip 1118 is of high concern, payment information may be used on the magnetic stripe 1116 or rewriteable magnetic stripe 1117 of the consumer modifiable card.
[00421] Alternatively, the virtual consumer modifiable card (vCMC 1110b) may be used. The vCMC 1110b functions similarly to the pCMC 1110a with the caveat that the information transferred from the vCMC 1110b is transferred via the device by which the user accesses the vCMC 1110b (e.g., if accessed via a smartphone the information may be transferred via the display of a smart code to be scanned (e.g., QR code or barcode), or by communication via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC, cellular, radio, or other smartphone enabled functionality).
On pgs. 10-11 of the remarks received 17 November 2025. Applicant appears to provide a citation supposedly directed towards disclosure at Para. [0420] of the specification. However, the citation appears to be provided incorrectly as Para. [0420] of the originally filed specification, provided above, does not appear to match Applicant’s provided excerpt. To the examiner’s best knowledge the excerpt applicant appears to cite is Para. [00424] of the originally filed specification which reads as follows:
[00424] Regarding step 1210, the consumer may access an application 1216 on the consumer's device 1206 which allows the consumer to access the consumer's consumer modifiable card account 1112 stored on the consumer's device 1206 (and/or stored in an external database accessible via the consumer's device 1206) and to request a balance inquiry for the consumer modifiable card 1110 and/or request value which may be added to the consumer modifiable card 1110. If the consumer desires to request value be added to the consumer modifiable card 1110, the application 1216 may cause the consumer's device 1206 to communicate with the point of sale 1113 via the display of a smart code (e.g., QR code or barcode which may be scanned by a point of sale interpretation device) or communicate the request to the point of sale via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC, cellular, radio, RFID, or other smartphone enabled functionality.
However, the examiner asserts that none of the specified sections of the originally filed specification appear to provide adequate support for the aforementioned claimed limitation. Para. [00420] discloses multiple mechanism by which the disclosed consumer modifiable payment card can be used such as using a magnetic stripe, NFC chip, etc. but makes no mention of whether these mechanisms explicitly exclude the use of the consumer device. Para. [00421] discloses a virtual consumer modifiable card which can be used to perform a transaction which cannot be the claimed card as the claims card is fabricated from a first material. And Para. [00424] discloses the functionality of an application on the consumer’s device which can be used to check the modifiable card’s balance, add funds, and can communicate with the point of sale. Thus, as none of the specified sections appear to provide support for the claimed function of using the consumer modifiable payment card without the the consumer’s device, the examiner must maintain the previously issued 112(a) rejection.
Prior Art Rejection:
Applicant asserts that the office has failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability with regard to the amended claims. Specifically, Applicant provides a brief disclosure of the cited portions of the previously cited prior art and merely asserts on pg. 16 of the remarks received 17 November 2025 that “Kon… has nothing to do with the claimed “wherein an enabling…”. The examiner respectfully disagrees based upon the rationale provided in the following prior art rejection and thus must maintain the previously issued rejection.
101 Rejection:
Applicant asserts that amended claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees based on the rationale provided in the following 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites: “wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is user authenticated, wherein user authentication of the consumer modifiable payment card enables the consumer modifiable payment card both for use with a consumer’s device and use without the consumer’s device” citing to Paras. [00420-00421] and [00424] of the originally filed specification as support for said limitations on pg. 10-11 of the remarks received 17 November 2025. However, Paras. [00420-00421] and [00424] of the originally filed specification do not appear to provide any description of the claimed functionality “wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is user authenticated, wherein user authentication of the consumer modifiable payment card enables the consumer modifiable payment card both for use with a consumer’s device and use without the consumer’s device”. Instead, the specified paragraphs appears to disclose as outlined in the response to arguments section of this office action.
Thus, as the claim 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 had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed, the claim must be rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 11 has also been newly amended to include additional language as claim 1 and thus is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) under similar rationale.
Additionally, as claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims which have been rejected under 35 USC 112(a), said claims must also be rejected under 35 USC 112(a) based upon similar rationale due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a system/apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A system comprising:
a consumer's device;
a consumer modifiable payment card, wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is fabricated from a first material, wherein the consumer modifiable payment card user authenticated, wherein user authentication of the consumer modifiable payment card enables the consumer modifiable payment card both for use with a consumer's device and use without the consumer's device, wherein an enabling of the consumer modifiable payment card for use with the consumer's device occurs once, wherein upon the enabling, the consumer modifiable payment card is configured to be directly electronically encoded with stored value information via the consumer's device during all subsequent payment transactions, and wherein electronically encoded comprises physically changing the consumer modifiable payment card; and
a consumer payment account stored in a database, wherein a value contained in the consumer payment account may be accessed via the consumer modifiable payment card for conducting payment transactions, wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives at least a portion of the value from the consumer payment account via a value transfer, and wherein the value transfer occurs subsequent to an initiation of a payment transaction.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing fundamental economic practices or principles. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite the performance of fundamental economic practices or principles including performing economic transactions and financial value transfers which is grouped within the Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of performing fundamental economic practices or principles including performing economic transactions and financial value transfers. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “consumer’s device”, a “consumer modifiable payment card … fabricated from a first material”, and a “consumer payment account stored in a database” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “consumer’s device”, “consumer modifiable payment card … fabricated from a first material”, and “consumer payment account stored in a database” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “consumer’s device”, a “consumer modifiable payment card … fabricated from a first material”, and a “consumer payment account stored in a database” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “consumer’s device”, “consumer modifiable payment card … fabricated from a first material”, and “consumer payment account stored in a database” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea of performing fundamental economic practices or principles. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 2 and 12 recite the additional element of near field communication functionality. However, said additional element neither places the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amounts to significantly more than simply applying the recited abstract idea to the technical field of electronic payment cards.
Claims 3-6 and 13-17 merely further describes the source of economic value transferred by the claimed invention when performing the recited abstract idea.
Claim 7 merely describes additional information, in the form of a PIN, which is used to perform the recited abstract idea of fundamental economic practices and principles.
Claims 8 and 18 merely further describe what devices can access the recited consumer modifiable payment card.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the additional element of a magnetic stripe. However, said additional element neither places the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amounts to significantly more than simply applying the recited abstract idea to the technical field of electronic payment cards.
Claims 10 and 20 merely further describe the value being transferred during the performance of the recited abstract idea.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 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 and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kon et al. (US 20090050686 A1) in view of Barrett (US 9830582) in further view of Kempkes et al. (US 8280793 B1) and Weisman et al. (US 11372954 B2).
In regards to Claim 1 and 11, Kon discloses:
A system comprising:
a consumer's device (See Kon: Fig. 1 and Para. [0058] – “FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the appearance of the electronic wallet device 10”);
a consumer modifiable payment card (See Kon: Fig. 1 and Para. [0060] – “a plurality of non-contact type IC cards 1”),
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is fabricated from a first material (See Kon: Fig. 1 and Para. [0060] – “a plurality of non-contact type IC cards 1” – It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the IC cards 1A, 1B, and 1C disclosed by Kon are physical cards and thus are fabricated from a first material),
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is user authenticated, wherein user authentication of the consumer modifiable payment card enables the consumer modifiable payment card both for use with a consumer’s device (See Kon: Fig. 13 and [0226-0229] – “The electronic wallet device 30 detects a non-contact type IC card inserted into the holding section (step S400) … Further, when it is determined in step S402 that there is no virtual card information corresponding to the detected non-contact type IC card, the electronic wallet device 30 generates virtual card information based on internal information of the non-contact type IC card detected in step S400 and records it in the storage section 304 (step S406)”; See Kon: Para. [0080] – “For example, as shown in FIG. 2A, at a ticket gate of public transportation, a user holds the electronic wallet device 10 holding a plurality of the non-contact type IC cards 1 over a reader/writer 21A of an automatic ticket gate (a host device) 20A of public transportation”),
and use without the consumer’s device (See Kon: Para. [0005] – “In recent years, non-contact type IC (Integrated Circuit) card (hereinafter called by their generally used name "smart cards") capable of communicating contactlessly with a reader/writer (or an information processor with reader/writer function) has become widespread” – Kon discloses a widespread, generally used, consumer modifiable payment card which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be configured to be capable/enabled to independently perform transactions with a merchant system)
wherein an enabling of the consumer modifiable payment card for use with the consumer’s device occurs once (See Kon: Fig. 13 – S400 and Para. [0229] – “Further, when it is determined in step S402 that there is no virtual card information corresponding to the detected non-contact type IC card, the electronic wallet device 30 generates virtual card information based on internal information of the non-contact type IC card detected in step S400 and records it in the storage section 304 (step S406)” – Kon discloses the insertion of the card occurring a singular time to enable to device (record the card information into the device’s storage), with the card inserted, to be used for multiple subsequent transactions),
wherein upon the enabling, the consumer modifiable payment card is configured to be directly electronically encoded with stored value information via the consumer's device during all subsequent payment transactions (See Kon: Fig. 14 and Para. [0246] – “The electronic wallet device 30 detects a card ejection request (step S500). When the card ejection request is detected in step S500, the electronic wallet device 30 writes back virtual card information requested for ejection into the non-contact type IC card” – Kon discloses that the inserted payment card is configured to be capable of being directly electronically encoded with stored value information for the duration of time after it has been inserted into the electronic wallet device up until it has been ejected from the electronic wallet device which would include during any transactions which occur after insertion but prior to removal of the card from the electronic wallet device)
wherein electronically encoded comprises physically changing the consumer modifiable payment card (See Kon: Fig. 14 and Para. [0246] – “The electronic wallet device 30 detects a card ejection request (step S500). When the card ejection request is detected in step S500, the electronic wallet device 30 writes back virtual card information requested for ejection into the non-contact type IC card” – It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed function of “writ[ing] back virtual card information requested for ejection into the non-contact Type IC card” constitutes a function analogous to overwriting magnetic barcode data on a conventional consumer payment card and thus constitutes a physical change of said card);
However, Kon fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein association is specifically performed via user authentication,
a consumer payment account stored in a database/value authorization provider,
wherein a value contained in the consumer payment account may be accessed via the consumer modifiable payment card for conducting payment transactions,
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives at least a portion of the value from the consumer payment account via a value transfer, and
wherein the value transfer occurs subsequent to an initiation of a payment transaction.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Barrett discloses:
a consumer payment account stored in a database/value authorization provider (See Barrett: col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-4 – “In the exemplary embodiment, prepaid account 342 is a data record stored in one or more of RAM, magnetic disk, or Flash array, and includes a funding account identifier 361 and all corresponding information necessary to initiate an authorization request for funds to be transferred from funding account 362 into prepaid account 342”),
wherein a value contained in the consumer payment account/value authorization provider may be accessed via the consumer modifiable payment card for conducting payment transactions (See Barrett: col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-4 – “In the exemplary embodiment, prepaid account 342 is a data record stored in one or more of RAM, magnetic disk, or Flash array, and includes a funding account identifier 361 and all corresponding information necessary to initiate an authorization request for funds to be transferred from funding account 362 into prepaid account 342”),
wherein the value transfer occurs subsequent to an initiation of a payment transaction (See Barrett: Fig. 4 – Step 401 – transaction using prepaid card 341 occurs. Later in step 412, the authorization switch approves authorization request based on funds in funding account 362. See Barret: col. 8, lines 47-55 – “In step 411, in the exemplary embodiment the second authorization switch 360 uses the information stored in the secondary authorization request (such as the funding account identifier 361) to retrieve funding account 362 from a database. In the exemplary embodiment, funding account 362 includes a current account balance. In the exemplary embodiment, if there are adequate funds in funding account 362 to compensate the purchase amount of the secondary authorization request, authorization switch 360 approves the secondary authorization request via network 355.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the generic IC card disclosed Kon for the prepaid consumer modifiable payment card associated with a consumer payment account from which it can draw funds as disclosed by Barrett yielding the predictable result of an improvement to the invention economic viability by enabling the invention to additionally operate using prepaid/stored-value cards.
However, the combination of Kon and Barrett fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein association is specifically performed via user authentication,
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives at least a portion of the value from the consumer payment account/value authorization provider via a value transfer, and
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kempkes discloses:
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives at least a portion of the value from the consumer payment account/value authorization provider via a value transfer (See Kempkes: col 2, lines 60-62 – “the method of the invention can enable the consumer to transfer value from the credit card account to the prepaid calling card in discrete quantities,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the account transfer capabilities between an associated account and a prepaid card of Kempkes subsequent to the transaction initiation of Kon and Barrett yielding the predictable result of an overall improvement of the efficiency of the invention by enabling the invention to self-determine that enough funds are available to fulfill transactions prior to facilitation.
However, the combination of Kon, Barrett and Kempkes fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein association is specifically performed via user authentication,
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Weisman discloses:
Establishing an association between a payment card and a computing device via user authentication (See Weisman: col. 8, lines 29-31 and lines 44-46 – “The process begins when the user attempts to register a card for a program, and computer system 112 receives 262 a registration request from the user … In the exemplary embodiment, upon receiving the registration request, server system 112 generates 264 an authentication message for the account associated with the account number provided by the user.” – Weisman discloses a method of registering a payment card with a computer system 112 via a user authentication of the cardowner)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the step of associating a payment card and a computing device disclosed by the combination of Kon, Barrett, and Kempkes to additionally incorporate the method of performing user authentication of a cardholder as a condition for association as disclosed by Wiesman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art in such a way because such a combination yields the predictable result of an increase in the security of transactions performed by the claimed invention due to an increase in the level of legitimacy assurance granted from user authentication (See Weisman: col. 1, lines 43-55)
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kon in view of Barrett in further view of Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur et al. (US 20080207203 A1).
In regards to Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, and Weisman discloses the system of claims 1 and 11 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card comprises near field communication functionality.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Arthur discloses:
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card comprises near field communication functionality (See Arthur: Para. [0007] – “Contactless transaction initiation is often performed with a “smart” card or other devices … such a card or device typically also includes … Near-Field Communications”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the consumer modifiable payment card disclosed by the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, and Weisman to be configured similarly to the consumer modifiable payment card capable of performing NFC functions as disclosed by Arthur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art in such a way as such a combination would yield the predictable result of an increase in user convenience due to the well-known convenience benefit associated with contactless payment vs contact-based payment.
In regards to Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur discloses:
The system of claims 1 and 11 wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives the value transfer from a consumer's smartphone (See Arthur: Para. [0047] – “Examples of POS devices thus include, without limitation, personal computers, cash registers, and any devices capable of reading a magnetic stripe, an RFID chip, NFC communications, or other information from a mobile device, contactless device, card, etc.”).
In regards to Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman and Arthur discloses:
The system of claims 1 and 11 wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives the value transfer from a point of sale (See Arthur: Para. [0047] – “Examples of POS devices thus include, without limitation, personal computers, cash registers, and any devices capable of reading a magnetic stripe, an RFID chip, NFC communications, or other information from a mobile device, contactless device, card, etc.”).
In regards to Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur discloses:
The system of claims 1 and 11 wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives the value transfer from a transaction processor (See Arthur: Para. [0047] – “Examples of POS devices thus include, without limitation, personal computers, cash registers, and any devices capable of reading a magnetic stripe, an RFID chip, NFC communications, or other information from a mobile device, contactless device, card, etc.”).
In regards to Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur discloses:
The system of claims 1 and 11 wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives the value transfer from an issuer (See Arthur: Para. [0047] – “Examples of POS devices thus include, without limitation, personal computers, cash registers, and any devices capable of reading a magnetic stripe, an RFID chip, NFC communications, or other information from a mobile device, contactless device, card, etc.”).
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur discloses:
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives the value transfer from an issuer (See Arthur: Para. [0047] – “Examples of POS devices thus include, without limitation, personal computers, cash registers, and any devices capable of reading a magnetic stripe, an RFID chip, NFC communications, or other information from a mobile device, contactless device, card, etc.”).
In regards to Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur discloses:
The system of Claims 1 and 11 wherein the consumer modifiable payment card is inaccessible via an electronic wallet (See Arthur: Fig. 3 – Arthur discloses a payment card 320 that is not directly accessible via mobile wallet server 335).
In regards to Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthur discloses:
The system of claims 1 and 11 wherein the consumer modifiable payment card comprises a magnetic stripe (See Arthur: Para. [0066] – “Account information is usually printed on the face of the card, specifying an account number and name of an authorized holder of the card. This information is also stored together with additional information on a magnetic stripe that is usually affixed to the back of the card”).
In regards to Claims 10 and 20, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, Weisman, and Arthus discloses:
The system of claims 1 and 11 wherein the value comprises domestic currency, foreign currency, digital currency, loyalty points, rewards points, credits, electronic value tokens, miles, authorization information, personal identification numbers, other forms of value, or combinations thereof (See Arthur: Para [0075] – “the mobile wallet of the mobile device can maintain information related to a plurality of financial accounts such as, for example, debit accounts, demand deposit accounts, stored value accounts, loyalty accounts … etc,” – It would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that a debit account would contain values of domestic or foreign currency and that loyalty accounts would contain values of loyalty points).
Claims 7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kon in view of Barrett in further view of Kempkes, Weisman, and Boucher (US 20110284633 A1)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, and Weisman discloses the systems of claims 1 and 11 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives a personal identification number which facilitates the value transfer to the consumer modifiable payment card.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Boucher discloses:
wherein the consumer modifiable payment card receives a personal identification number which facilitates a value transfer to the consumer modifiable payment card (See Boucher: Para. [0087] – “alternatively, the card itself receives the PIN code and checks it itself, and then communicates a positive result of the check preferable in enciphered form to the bank or with an associated certificate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the date of invention to modify the card of the combination of Kon, Barrett, Kempkes, and Weisman to receive and check a PIN as taught by Boucher in order to reduce burden on a bank system by locally checking the PIN code internally (See Boucher: Para. [0089] – “the card has checked the PIN code internally and communicates, preferably in enciphered form, the positive result of the comparison of the PIN code typed to the bank, which locally deciphers and proceeds with payment”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dixon et al. (US 20090171682 A1) is directed to a system configured to perform transaction processing for prepaid products/cards and performing said processing in an offline environment.
Doran et al. (US 20060069642 A1) in directed to methods and systems for exchanging various forms of value such as currency, debt, bank accounts funds, for prepaid cash cards, credit cards, phone cards, and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 1 pm-9 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 570-270-1492. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699