DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed May 12, 2026, the Applicant amended claim 1; canceled claims 4, 5, 16, and 19; and added claims 21-24. Claim 6 was indicated as amended but no amendments were made to the claim. Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18, and 20-24, are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18, and 20-24, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible as they are directed to an improvement in payment network architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the alleged improvements are non-technical subjective/abstract improvements, not technical improvements to computers or technological processes, but addresses a business challenge regarding the accurate monitoring and controlling of promotional campaigns. Making sure promotions are verified and applied properly is directed to, if anything, a business “improvement” (e.g., accurate methods and ways to apply promotions to sales). The idea of accurate monitoring and controlling of promotions is not a patent eligible “improvement.” That a computer is used to execute the steps and limitations of the abstract idea serves merely to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Applicant’s reference to Enfish is not persuasive as the claims do not share any similar limitations nor do they share the same realm of technology. The fact that the steps of verifying and validating promotional offers are executed on a networked system does not somehow automatically make problem unique to the realm of computer networks. The fact that the determinations are made by a generic computer processor does not somehow automatically make the solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. The instant claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment - that being a computer environment. This same problem would exist in non-computer environments, and the same solution would be appropriate. Stripped of the generic computer elements recited in the claims, the problem and solution would remain intact. Limitations that link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not qualify as "significantly more," and do not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using the “record a tamper-resistant redemption state associated with the serialized promotional offer, the blockchain maintaining the redemption state across a plurality of independent transaction endpoints and preventing authorization of the same serialized promotional offer during concurrent redemption attempts;” “when detected by the POS system or a payment processor, causes execution of a non-default authorization processing path distinct from standard monetary authorization processing,” “wherein detection of the BIN selected from the predefined BIN range interrupts an in-progress authorization flow and causes the network-connected server, prior to completion of authorization, to transmit a query to the POS system via a separate communication channel requesting item-level transaction data identifying items currently present in the purchase, wherein completion of the authorization flow is held pending receipt of a response to the query from the POS system, and wherein the network-connected server is configured to automatically decline the authorization request by terminating the authorization flow prior to approval when either (i) the item-level transaction data fails to identify an allowable item for which use of the promotional offer is authorized, or (ii) the blockchain indicates the serialized promotional offer has been redeemed;” “wherein the ordered combination of the BIN-triggered authorization interruption, the POS interrogation via the separate communication channel, and the blockchain-based redemption state enforcement enables the card-based payment network to perform item-level authorization that is not supported by standard card authorization requests,” (claim 1); “hold the authorization request to prevent completion of an authorization flow prior to approval;” (claims 21 and 23), is equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitations “if authorized, crediting the purchase transaction at the point-of-sale system a value associated with the promotional offer;” as recited in claim 1, does not move to distinguish the claimed invention. The phrase “if authorized, crediting the purchase transaction at the point-of-sale system a value associated with the promotional offer;” is conditional/contingent limitations with the noted “crediting the purchase transaction at the point-of-sale system a value associated with the promotional offer” as recited in claim 1, steps not necessarily performed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. As such, the claim limitation will not be given patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims; See MPEP §2111.04 II.
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 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18, and 20-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrases “record a tamper-resistant redemption state associated with the serialized promotional offer, the blockchain maintaining the redemption state across a plurality of independent transaction endpoints and preventing authorization of the same serialized promotional offer during concurrent redemption attempts;” “when detected by the POS system or a payment processor, causes execution of a non-default authorization processing path distinct from standard monetary authorization processing,” “wherein detection of the BIN selected from the predefined BIN range interrupts an in-progress authorization flow and causes the network-connected server, prior to completion of authorization, to transmit a query to the POS system via a separate communication channel requesting item-level transaction data identifying items currently present in the purchase, wherein completion of the authorization flow is held pending receipt of a response to the query from the POS system, and wherein the network-connected server is configured to automatically decline the authorization request by terminating the authorization flow prior to approval when either (i) the item-level transaction data fails to identify an allowable item for which use of the promotional offer is authorized, or (ii) the blockchain indicates the serialized promotional offer has been redeemed;” “wherein the ordered combination of the BIN-triggered authorization interruption, the POS interrogation via the separate communication channel, and the blockchain-based redemption state enforcement enables the card-based payment network to perform item-level authorization that is not supported by standard card authorization requests.” These limitations contain 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 pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, “a tamper-resistant redemption state” is understood to describe a process during an authorization process (Current disclosure, Par. [0076], [0085]). The original disclosure consistently uses "redemption process " or “authorization process” to refer to steps in the process of redeeming a promotion or authorizing a promotion (see Par. [0076], [0085]). While the original disclosure suggests there may be steps in a "redemption process " or “authorization process”, nowhere in the original disclosure is there a suggestion that the “a tamper-resistant redemption state” or differing “states” of the process that distinguish themselves from the process as a whole. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
With regard to claim 1, “execution of a non-default authorization processing path distinct from standard monetary authorization processing,” “wherein detection of the BIN selected from the predefined BIN range interrupts an in-progress authorization flow,” “wherein completion of the authorization flow is held pending receipt of a response to the query from the POS system,” “BIN-triggered authorization interruption” are understood to be pauses or interrupts in the authorization process or “flow” that hold the process from completing. The original disclosure consistently uses "redemption process " or “authorization process” to refer to steps in the process of redeeming a promotion or authorizing a promotion (see Par. [0076], [0085]). While the original disclosure suggests there may be steps in a "redemption process " or “authorization process”, nowhere in the original disclosure is there a suggestion that the process is ever “interrupted” or “held”. In addition, nowhere in the original disclosure is there a suggestion that there are paths within the processing path or are outside of the processing path. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claim 1.
Claims 21 and 23 recite the phrase “hold the authorization request to prevent completion of an authorization flow prior to approval.” This limitation 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 pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 21 and 23, “hold the authorization request to prevent completion of an authorization flow prior to approval” is understood to be a pause or interrupt in the authorization process or “flow” that hold the process from completing. The original disclosure consistently uses "redemption process " or “authorization process” to refer to steps in the process of redeeming a promotion or authorizing a promotion (see Par. [0076], [0085]). While the original disclosure suggests there may be steps in a "redemption process " or “authorization process”, nowhere in the original disclosure is there a suggestion that the process is ever “interrupted” or “held”. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Dependent claims 22 and 24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 21 and 23.
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, 6-15, 17, 18, and 20-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18, and 20, are directed to a process and claims 21-24 are directed to machines, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“facilitating merchant-specific and item-specific redemption of a promotional offer to a purchase,”
“serializing the promotional offer to generate a number of coupons, wherein each coupon receives its own unique serial number;”
“recording the serial number of each of the number of coupons…,”
“storing information… the information relating to a promotional offer, one or more items for which use of the promotional offer is authorized, and a merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized;”
“associating a unique bank identification number (BIN) with the promotional offer…, the BIN being selected from a predefined BIN range,… wherein the BIN is uniquely associated with the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized and the one or more items for which use of the promotional offer is authorized;”
“associating a one-time-use unique bank card number with the promotional offer, wherein the unique bank card number includes the unique BIN;”
“storing the unique bank card number … with the promotional offer;”
“transmitting the unique bank card number … for a consumer user … to use in redeeming the promotional offer in a purchase including one or more of the one or more items for which use of the promotional offer is authorized,”
wherein the promotional offer is limited to use with one or more specific products or services, the bank card number associated with the promotional offer associated with one or more products or services for which redemption of the promotional offer is authorized, and the authorization of the redemption is recorded;”
“distributing an updated BIN file or BIN table… where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized or … such that the one- time-use unique bank card number incorporating the unique BIN can only be used at the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized and will be declined elsewhere;”
“receiving the one-time-use unique bank card number… where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized as at least partial payment of a purchase transaction including at least one of the one or more items for which use of the promotional offer is authorized;”
“upon the consumer user's making a redemption attempt of a coupon during the purchase transaction, doing the following: initiating a bankcard authorization process associated with the purchase transaction, the bankcard authorization process comprising performing a lookup using the BIN of the unique bank card number to verify that redemption of the promotional offer is authorized for at least one item in the purchase transaction;”
“checking the redemption attempt …to ensure that the coupon is one of the number of coupons recorded… and that the coupon has not yet been redeemed, preventing fraudulent double redemption attempts; and if authorized, crediting the purchase transaction… a value associated with the promotional offer;”
“tracking real-time redemption information as the promotional offer and similar promotional offers are redeemed at points of sale;” and
“providing the redemption information…”
Claim 21 recites/describes the following steps:
“detect receipt of an authorization request initiated using a unique bank card number containing a Bank Identification Number (BIN) selected from a predefined BIN range associated with a promotional offer and one or more allowable items;”
“…transmit a query…, the query requesting item-level transaction data identifying one or more items included in a current transaction;”
“verify a validity of the authorization request based on: (i) determining that the item-level transaction data identifies at least one of the one or more allowable items; and (ii) querying… to confirm that a redemption state associated with a serialized promotional offer represented by the unique bank card number indicates the promotional offer is unredeemed, …to record and enforce a tamper-resistant redemption state across a plurality of independent transaction endpoints;” and
“terminate the authorization flow prior to approval when either of the determinations fails, or forward the authorization request for completion when both determinations succeed.”
Claim 23 recites/describes the following steps:
“detect receipt of an authorization request initiated using a unique bank card number associated with a promotional offer and one or more allowable items;”
“…transmit a query…, the query requesting item-level transaction data identifying one or more items included in a current transaction;”
“verify a validity of the authorization request based on: (i) determining that the item-level transaction data identifies at least one of the one or more allowable items; and (ii) querying… to determine a redemption state associated with a serialized promotional offer represented by the unique bank card number, …to record a tamper-resistant redemption state and prevent authorization of the same serialized promotional offer during concurrent redemption attempts occurring prior to completion of authorization;” and
“terminate the authorization flow prior to approval when either of the determinations fails or forward the authorization request for completion when both determinations succeed.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth providing a bank card number containing a bank identification number to a consumer to redeem a promotional offer and authorizing promotional offer redemptions with the use of bank identification numbers, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 6 recites the additional limitation “a point-of-sale (POS)-monitoring computer system at least intermittently operatively connected with the POS system operated by the merchant,” which is addressed in the analysis below.
Dependent claim 12 recites the additional limitation “wherein the POS-monitoring computer system is a system selected from the group consisting of: a computer system incorporated into a bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” “a computer system separate from the bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” which is addressed in the analysis below.
Dependent claim 17 recites the additional limitation “a promotions provider” which is addressed in the analysis below.
Dependent claim 18 recites the additional limitation “a computer system,” which is addressed in the analysis below.
Each of the depending claims 2, 3, 7-11, 13-15, 20, 22, and 24, likewise recite/describe the steps of the abstract idea (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a card-based payment network that does not natively process item-level transaction data” “providing a point-of-sale (POS) system and a network-connected server, the server comprising: one or more communications modules configured to establish one or more communicative connections with external computer systems over one or more computer networks; a long-term memory store; short-term memory; and a processor; wherein the communications module, the long-term memory store, and the short-term memory store are operatively connected with the processor to allow the processor to access the communications module, the long-term memory store, and the short-term memory thereby providing the processor with access to data therefrom and transfer of data thereto” “a blockchain,” “a payment processor,” “a consumer device,” “a separate communication channel,” “a point-of-sale system of the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized or to a payment processor of the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized only,” and “a promotional offer managing entity,” (claim 1); “a network-connected server system for enforcing item-level authorization constraints within a payment network that does not natively process item-level transaction data, the system comprising: a network interface configured to receive authorization requests associated with payment transactions from the payment network; and a processor coupled to a memory,” “a communication channel,” “a point-of-sale (POS) system associated with the authorization request,” and “a blockchain,” (claims 21 and 23). Dependent claims recite that additional elements of: “a point-of-sale (POS)-monitoring computer system,” (claim 6), “wherein the POS-monitoring computer system is a system selected from the group consisting of: a computer system incorporated into a bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” “a computer system separate from the bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” (claim 12), “a promotions provider” (claim 17), and “a computer system,” (claim 18).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “record a tamper-resistant redemption state associated with the serialized promotional offer, the blockchain maintaining the redemption state across a plurality of independent transaction endpoints and preventing authorization of the same serialized promotional offer during concurrent redemption attempts;” “when detected by the POS system or a payment processor, causes execution of a non-default authorization processing path distinct from standard monetary authorization processing,” “wherein detection of the BIN selected from the predefined BIN range interrupts an in-progress authorization flow and causes the network-connected server, prior to completion of authorization, to transmit a query to the POS system via a separate communication channel requesting item-level transaction data identifying items currently present in the purchase, wherein completion of the authorization flow is held pending receipt of a response to the query from the POS system, and wherein the network-connected server is configured to automatically decline the authorization request by terminating the authorization flow prior to approval when either (i) the item-level transaction data fails to identify an allowable item for which use of the promotional offer is authorized, or (ii) the blockchain indicates the serialized promotional offer has been redeemed;” “wherein the ordered combination of the BIN-triggered authorization interruption, the POS interrogation via the separate communication channel, and the blockchain-based redemption state enforcement enables the card-based payment network to perform item-level authorization that is not supported by standard card authorization requests,” (claim 1); “hold the authorization request to prevent completion of an authorization flow prior to approval;” (claims 21 and 23).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using the “a card-based payment network that does not natively process item-level transaction data” “providing a point-of-sale (POS) system and a network-connected server, the server comprising: one or more communications modules configured to establish one or more communicative connections with external computer systems over one or more computer networks; a long-term memory store; short-term memory; and a processor; wherein the communications module, the long-term memory store, and the short-term memory store are operatively connected with the processor to allow the processor to access the communications module, the long-term memory store, and the short-term memory thereby providing the processor with access to data therefrom and transfer of data thereto” “a blockchain,” “a payment processor,” “a consumer device,” “a separate communication channel,” “a point-of-sale system of the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized or to a payment processor of the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized only,” and “a promotional offer managing entity,” (claim 1); “a network-connected server system for enforcing item-level authorization constraints within a payment network that does not natively process item-level transaction data, the system comprising: a network interface configured to receive authorization requests associated with payment transactions from the payment network; and a processor coupled to a memory,” “a communication channel,” “a point-of-sale (POS) system associated with the authorization request,” and “a blockchain,” (claims 21 and 23); “a point-of-sale (POS)-monitoring computer system,” (claim 6), “wherein the POS-monitoring computer system is a system selected from the group consisting of: a computer system incorporated into a bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” “a computer system separate from the bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” (claim 12), “a promotions provider” (claim 17), and “a computer system,” (claim 18), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using the “record a tamper-resistant redemption state associated with the serialized promotional offer, the blockchain maintaining the redemption state across a plurality of independent transaction endpoints and preventing authorization of the same serialized promotional offer during concurrent redemption attempts;” “when detected by the POS system or a payment processor, causes execution of a non-default authorization processing path distinct from standard monetary authorization processing,” “wherein detection of the BIN selected from the predefined BIN range interrupts an in-progress authorization flow and causes the network-connected server, prior to completion of authorization, to transmit a query to the POS system via a separate communication channel requesting item-level transaction data identifying items currently present in the purchase, wherein completion of the authorization flow is held pending receipt of a response to the query from the POS system, and wherein the network-connected server is configured to automatically decline the authorization request by terminating the authorization flow prior to approval when either (i) the item-level transaction data fails to identify an allowable item for which use of the promotional offer is authorized, or (ii) the blockchain indicates the serialized promotional offer has been redeemed;” “wherein the ordered combination of the BIN-triggered authorization interruption, the POS interrogation via the separate communication channel, and the blockchain-based redemption state enforcement enables the card-based payment network to perform item-level authorization that is not supported by standard card authorization requests,” (claim 1); “hold the authorization request to prevent completion of an authorization flow prior to approval;” (claims 21 and 23), is equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 2, 3, 7-11, 13-15, 20, 22, and 24, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using the “a card-based payment network that does not natively process item-level transaction data” “providing a point-of-sale (POS) system and a network-connected server, the server comprising: one or more communications modules configured to establish one or more communicative connections with external computer systems over one or more computer networks; a long-term memory store; short-term memory; and a processor; wherein the communications module, the long-term memory store, and the short-term memory store are operatively connected with the processor to allow the processor to access the communications module, the long-term memory store, and the short-term memory thereby providing the processor with access to data therefrom and transfer of data thereto” “a blockchain,” “a payment processor,” “a consumer device,” “a separate communication channel,” “a point-of-sale system of the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized or to a payment processor of the merchant where redemption of the promotional offer is authorized only,” and “a promotional offer managing entity,” (claim 1); “a network-connected server system for enforcing item-level authorization constraints within a payment network that does not natively process item-level transaction data, the system comprising: a network interface configured to receive authorization requests associated with payment transactions from the payment network; and a processor coupled to a memory,” “a communication channel,” “a point-of-sale (POS) system associated with the authorization request,” and “a blockchain,” (claims 21 and 23); “a point-of-sale (POS)-monitoring computer system,” (claim 6), “wherein the POS-monitoring computer system is a system selected from the group consisting of: a computer system incorporated into a bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” “a computer system separate from the bank card authorization system operated by the merchant,” (claim 12), “a promotions provider” (claim 17), and “a computer system,” (claim 18), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using the “record a tamper-resistant redemption state associated with the serialized promotional offer, the blockchain maintaining the redemption state across a plurality of independent transaction endpoints and preventing authorization of the same serialized promotional offer during concurrent redemption attempts;” “when detected by the POS system or a payment processor, causes execution of a non-default authorization processing path distinct from standard monetary authorization processing,” “wherein detection of the BIN selected from the predefined BIN range interrupts an in-progress authorization flow and causes the network-connected server, prior to completion of authorization, to transmit a query to the POS system via a separate communication channel requesting item-level transaction data identifying items currently present in the purchase, wherein completion of the authorization flow is held pending receipt of a response to the query from the POS system, and wherein the network-connected server is configured to automatically decline the authorization request by terminating the authorization flow prior to approval when either (i) the item-level transaction data fails to identify an allowable item for which use of the promotional offer is authorized, or (ii) the blockchain indicates the serialized promotional offer has been redeemed;” “wherein the ordered combination of the BIN-triggered authorization interruption, the POS interrogation via the separate communication channel, and the blockchain-based redemption state enforcement enables the card-based payment network to perform item-level authorization that is not supported by standard card authorization requests,” (claim 1); “hold the authorization request to prevent completion of an authorization flow prior to approval;” (claims 21 and 23), is equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2, 3, 7-11, 13-15, 20, 22, and 24, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18, and 20-24, recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
The closest prior art of record and an examiner’s statement for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter were identified in the Office action mailed January 12, 2026.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Hogan et al. (US 2008/0065554 A1) discloses a system for conducting a financial transaction by a purchaser with a merchant having an acquirer bank, over a communications network. The method includes the steps of sending a first authorization request using a pseudo account number associated with a real account number to a service provider which forwards a second authorization request to the issuer using the real account number and preferably a pseudo acquirer code associated with the service provider such that the response to the second request is based on the real account number and sent back to the service provider who preferably forwards a response to the first request preferably to the “real” acquirer. A message authentication code is further provided which includes transaction data, and where the authorization request is formatted as a standard payment card track having one or more fields including a discretionary field in which the message authentication code is placed.
Conclusion
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights