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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 5/20/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, and 15-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, 15-19, and 21-24 are currently amended.
Claim 20 is previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The prior rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding representative claim 1, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea of managing a financial instrument because they include additional elements such as generating a sub-account, placing a hold on available credit, establishing a sub-account credit limit, generating and linking a virtual account number, enabling cancellation and value modification, providing redemption alerts, and issuing a short-term certificate without funding it with actual funds until redemption. Applicant further argues that the specification identifies shortcomings in conventional gift card systems, including the inability of a giver to track usage and problems associated with funding gift cards at purchase. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement by addressing these shortcomings.
The argument is not persuasive. The additional elements merely implement the abstract idea of providing and managing a financial instrument using generic computer functionality. Features such as generating a sub-account, placing a hold on available credit, establishing a sub-account credit limit, generating and linking a virtual account number, enabling cancellation and value modification, providing redemption alerts, and issuing a short-term certificate without funding it with actual funds until redemption fall under the abstract idea which is independently abstract. These limitations do not improve the operation of a computer, network, database, or other technology. Instead, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using computers as a generic implementation tool. The benefits stated in the specification, including improved gift tracking, reduced unused balances, and increased flexibility for gift givers, are business improvements rather than technological improvements. The portions of the specification that Applicant points to do not support a specific technological solution to a technological problem. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the analysis, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. 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 a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the rejection is conclusory. However, the argument is not persuasive. The rejection identifies the abstract idea recited by the claims and identifies the additional elements as generic computer implementation. The fact that the specification describes perceived shortcomings of prior gift-card systems does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claims recite a technological improvement. These portions of the specification have been considered and do not support a specific technological improvement.
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility framework, nor do they provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. As such, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained herein.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 5-7, 9-12, and 15-24 rely upon the arguments presented with regards to claim 1 and are similarly unpersuasive.
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, 5-7, 9-12, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, and 15-24 are directed to a method (process), non-transitory computer-readable medium (product), or system (machine), which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product claim 12 and independent system claim 19. Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving a request for a short-term certificate to be provided from a first party to a second party,
the request comprising:
a first party identifier;
a value of the short-term certificate, and
an electronic identifier for the second party, said electronic identifier selected from the group consisting of: an email address and a mobile phone number;
identifying a credit account of said first party;
forming a sub-account of said credit account, said forming said sub-account comprising:
generating a hold equal to said requested value of said short-term certificate said hold reducing a credit limit of said credit account by said requested value of said short-term certificate;
setting a sub-account credit limit, said sub-account credit limit set to said requested value of said short-term certificate;
incorporating a cancel protocol, said cancel protocol allowing said first party to cancel said short-term certificate;
incorporating a value-modifying protocol, said value-modifying protocol allowing said first party to modify a value of said short-term certificate;
initiating an automatic redemption alert, said automatic redemption alert triggered by a redemption of said short-term certificate;
generating said short-term certificate, said short-term certificate comprising:
a virtual account number;
an expiration date; and
a security code; and
linking said virtual account number with said credit account but not with an underlying credit account number of said credit account, wherein no funds from said credit account are held in said sub-account;
[electronically] transmitting said short-term certificate to said electronic identifier of said second party, wherein said hold of said sub-account is applied to said credit account when said short-term certificate is transmitted,
receiving a redemption event when said short-term certificate is used to make a purchase, said redemption event comprising a monetary amount of said purchase;
charging said monetary amount of said purchase to said credit account;
automatically sending said automatic redemption alert to said first party when said redemption event is received, said automatic redemption alert comprising: an identification of a use of said short-term certificate, and said monetary amount of said redemption event; and
modifying said hold of said sub-account to a remainder value of said short-term certificate, said remainder value equal to said requested value of said-short term certificate minus said monetary amount of said purchase.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations set forth or describe provision and management of a financial instrument, i.e. “short-term certificate”, which is both a “fundamental economic practice” and a “commercial or legal interaction” (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a “fundamental economic practice” or “commercial or legal interaction”, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations drawn to electronically sending information in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 12 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: electronically transmitting
Claim 12: claim 1 additional elements; non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors
Claim 19: claim 1 additional elements; memory, storage, one or more processors
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [00127] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 5-7, 9-11, 15-18, and 20-24 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 12, and 19 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1, 5-7, 9-12, and 15-24 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan (US 2009/0307130 A1) discloses a method and system for accepting delayed payment of prepaid cards. The method includes providing a prepaid card to a purchaser, the prepaid card associated with a face value. The method includes, responsive to a redemption of the prepaid card, providing a consideration in accordance to the face value. The method includes receiving a payment for the prepaid card after the consideration has been provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights