DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 23, 31, and 39.
Applicant previously cancelled claims 1-22, 28, 30, 36, 38, 40, and 42.
Claims 23-27, 29, 31-35, 37, 39, 41, and 43-48 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 23-27, 29, 31-35, 37, 39, 41, and 43-48 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges the claims do not recite an abstract idea and provides no analysis as to why the claims are not directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Merely having a different opinion as to how to describe the thrust of the claims does not change what the claims actually recite. Applicant’s amendments do not change the abstract nature of the claims. Applicant has not claimed anything that is a non-abstract idea. The limitation do not improve the functioning of a computer but rather improve the business method performed using the computer device/payment processor. The use of geographic location data to determine if a transaction should be processed is not a non-abstract idea. These limitations are a part of the abstract idea or describe the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Examiner identified the limitations which define the abstract idea and how they are directed to a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions. Since they are a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial/legal interactions the claims fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore constitute an abstract idea (and thus a judicial exception).
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As noted above, Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (whether to approve a transaction) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Applicant merely identified the utility of the claims which does not necessarily mean they recite a practical application. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. The use of geographic location data to determine if a transaction should be processed is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 23-27, 29, 31-35, 37, 39, 41, and 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as executing payment processing.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 23-27, 29, and 43-48), machine (claims 31-35 and 37), and manufacture/product (claims 39 and 41).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 23, 31, and 39 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
receiving stored value processing rules defining at least stored value processing filters, a transaction velocity, and an acceptable load velocity that restricts an amount loaded onto a stored value transaction vehicle, and a selected timeframe,
wherein the acceptable load velocity includes a first load velocity associated with cash-based loads and a second load velocity associated with deposit-based and/or account-transfer-based loads,
and wherein the stored value processing filters include an acceptable geographic location for processing transactions with the stored value transaction vehicle;
associating the stored value processing rules with the stored value transaction vehicle;
receiving a request to load funds onto the stored value transaction vehicle;
accessing the stored value processing rules;
determining to load the funds onto the stored value transaction vehicle based on an association existing between the accessed stored value processing rules and the stored value transaction vehicle, and based on the request to load funds meeting requirements of the stored value processing rules;
receiving transaction data from an entity for a purchase transaction,
wherein the stored value transaction vehicle is read as the purchase transaction is occurring;
and wherein the transaction data comprises an authorization request and identifies an account of a transaction vehicle,
wherein the transaction data comprises a geographic location of the purchase transaction,
comparing the transaction data against the stored value processing rules by accessing the stored value processing rules;
determining the transaction vehicle is the stored value transaction vehicle based on the comparing;
approving the authorization request based, at least in part, on meeting requirements of the stored value processing rules and based on the geographic location of the purchase transaction meeting the acceptable geographic location for processing transactions with the stored value transaction vehicle;
and processing the purchase transaction using the stored value transaction vehicle, based on approving the authorization request
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the claims recite determining if a transaction complies with rules. Since this is commercial activity as well as risk mitigation the claims are a commercial/legal interaction as well as a fundamental economic practice that can be performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a commercial/legal interaction or a fundamental economic practice, then it recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic system components for implementing the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a stored value transaction vehicle processing engine, one or more servers, a network, an acquirer processor, a data store, a transaction processing computing system, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, instructions, a graphical user interface, a dashboard, a point-of-sale device; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more generic computer components. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. They are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving stored value processing rules,
receiving a request to load funds onto the stored value transaction vehicle;
accessing the stored value processing rules;
receiving transaction data from an entity for a purchase transaction,
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). 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. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
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 judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a stored value transaction vehicle processing engine, one or more servers, a network, an acquirer processor, a data store, a transaction processing computing system, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, instructions a graphical user interface, a dashboard, a point-of-sale device; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations of:
receiving stored value processing rules,
receiving a request to load funds onto the stored value transaction vehicle;
accessing the stored value processing rules;
receiving transaction data from an entity for a purchase transaction,
amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0011-0020], [0029] [0038], [0042], [0045-0046], about implementation of the abstract idea 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, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 24, 26, 29, 32, 34, 37, 41, and 45-47 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 23, 31, and 39. Therefore, claims 24, 26, 29, 32, 34, 37, 41, and 45-47 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 25, 33, 43, 44, and 48 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 23, 31, and 39. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a transaction vehicle issuer system, a graphical user interface, and a stored value dashboard. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 25, 33, 43, 44, and 48 are considered ineligible subject matter.
As for dependent claims 27, 35, and 43 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 23, 31, and 39. In addition, the recite the additional elements of
receiving processing parameters for implementation of the stored value processing rules,
receiving the stored value processing rules,
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2016(d)(II)(i), 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 27, 35, and 43 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 24-27, 29, 32-35, 37, 41, and 43-48 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694