DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Application
The submission filed March 11, 2026 includes Terminal Disclaimer and Remarks. Claims 22-105 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 11, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,049,110 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 11, 2026 overcomes the non-statutory double patenting rejections previously set forth in this Application proceeding.
35 USC § 112(f) Notification
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
• Claim limitation "means to store" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder: "means to" coupled with functional language: "store" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
• Claim limitation "means to process processor-executable instructions" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder: "means to" coupled with functional language: "process processor-executable instructions" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 22-105 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.
Claims 22-105 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 22 -: 22. A payment processing readable collection, the collection with instructions comprising: receive a payment settling request via the payment settling; determine a payment amount and a trace by parsing the payment settling request, wherein the trace links a payment with an EOP data file-; and provide a payment request; obtain a request to generate a payment card- associated with the payment request to a provider via the card- generating, wherein the request to generate a payment card- is a request configured to generate the creation of a new payment card-, and wherein the new payment card- is any of: debit card-, credit card-, virtual debit card-, virtual credit card-, reloadable debit card-, one-time credit card-, one-time debit card-; determine a payment amount and a trace by parsing the card- generation request; generate a payment card- for the payment; associate the payment card- with the payment amount and the trace; and send a card- payment processing request associated with the card-; obtain the card- payment processing request via the card- payment processing; generate a card- payment request, wherein the card- payment request includes the payment amount and the trace; determine a payment request route associated with the card-; and pushing- the card- payment request via the determined payment request route. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 23 -: 23. claim 22, further, comprising: configure the payment card- to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category. Claim 24 -: 24. claim 22, wherein the payment card- involves a single use card-. Claim 25 -: 25. claim 24, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 26 -: 26. claim 22, wherein the payment card- involves a reloadable card-. Claim 27 -: 27. claim 26, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 28 -: 28. claim 27, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the CVV for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 29 -: 29. claim 27, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the expiration date for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 30 -: 30. claim 22, wherein the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network-, and virtual. Claim 31 -: 31. claim 22, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to a payment network-. Claim 32 -: 32. claim 22, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to an acquirer. Claim 33 -: 33. claim 32, wherein the acquirer calculates an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 34 -: 34. claim 32, wherein the issuer and the acquirer are the same entity. Claim 35 -: 35. claim 22, further, comprising: calculate an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 36 -: 36. claim 22, wherein send a payment request, wherein the payment request includes the payment amount and the trace. Claim 37 -: 37. claim 36, wherein the payment amount is the payment amount less a fee, and wherein trace is the trace. Claim 38 -: 38. claim 36, further, comprising: update the provider virtually with details regarding the payment, wherein the details include the payment amount and the trace. Claim 39 -: 39. claim 22, further, comprising: an EOP file- delivering in the collection, and select an EOP file- associated with the trace; determine the provider's EOP file- delivery preferences; and deliver the EOP file- per the provider's EOP file- delivery preferences. Claim 40 -: 40. claim 39, wherein the EOP file- delivery preferences include one of: file transfer, mail, clearinghouse, and provider pick-up. Claim 41 -: 41. claim 39, wherein the EOP file- is delivered within a specified time of the card- generation request being sent. Claim 42 -: 42. claim 22, wherein the payment is one of the plurality of payments in a batch of payments that are processed in aggregate. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 43 -: 43. A payment processing implemented, comprising: a collection; process instructions from the collection, the collection with instructions including: receive a payment... obtain a request... determine a payment... generate a payment... associate the payment... obtain the card-... generate a card-... determine a payment... pushing- the card-... [id. at 22], Claim 44 -: 44. claim 43, further, comprising: configure the payment card- to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category. Claim 45 -: 45. claim 43, wherein the payment card- involves a single use card-. Claim 46 -: 46. claim 45, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 47 -: 47. claim 43, wherein the payment card- involves a reloadable card-. Claim 48 -: 48. claim 47, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 49 -: 49. claim 48, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the CVV for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 50 -: 50. claim 48, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the expiration date for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 51 -: 51. claim 43, wherein the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network-, and virtual. Claim 52 -: 52. claim 43, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to a payment network-. Claim 53 -: 53. claim 43, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to an acquirer. Claim 54 -: 54. claim 53, wherein the acquirer calculates an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 55 -: 55. claim 53, wherein the issuer and the acquirer are the same entity. Claim 56 -: 56. claim 43, further, comprising: calculate an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 57 -: 57. claim 43, wherein send a payment request, wherein the payment request includes the payment amount and the trace. Claim 58 -: 58. claim 57, wherein the payment amount is the payment amount less a fee, and wherein trace is the trace. Claim 59 -: 59. claim 57, further, comprising: update the provider virtually with details regarding the payment, wherein the details include the payment amount and the trace. Claim 60 -: 60. claim 43, further, comprising: an EOP file- delivering in the collection, and select an EOP file- associated with the trace; determine the provider's... [id. at 39], Claim 61 -: 61. claim 60, wherein the EOP file- delivery preferences include one of: file transfer, mail, clearinghouse, and provider pick-up. Claim 62 -: 62. claim 60, wherein the EOP file- is delivered within a specified time of the card- generation request being sent. Claim 63 -: 63. claim 43, wherein the payment is one of the plurality of payments in a batch of payments that are processed in aggregate. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 64 -: 64. A payment processing process, including processing instructions from a collection, the collection with instructions comprising: receive a payment... obtain a request... determine a payment... generate a payment... associate the payment... obtain the card-... generate a card-... determine a payment... pushing- the card-... [id. at 22], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 65 -: 65. The process of claim 64, further, comprising: configure the payment card- to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category. Claim 66 -: 66. The process of claim 64, wherein the payment card- involves a single use card-. Claim 67 -: 67. The process of claim 66, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 68 -: 68. The process of claim 64, wherein the payment card- involves a reloadable card-. Claim 69 -: 69. The process of claim 68, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 70 -: 70. The process of claim 69, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the CVV for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 71 -: 71. The process of claim 69, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the expiration date for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 72 -: 72. The process of claim 64, wherein the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network-, and virtual. Claim 73 -: 73. The process of claim 64, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to a payment network-. Claim 74 -: 74. The process of claim 64, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to an acquirer. Claim 75 -: 75. The process of claim 74, wherein the acquirer calculates an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 76 -: 76. The process of claim 74, wherein the issuer and the acquirer are the same entity. Claim 77 -: 77. The process of claim 64, further, comprising: calculate an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 78 -: 78. The process of claim 64, wherein send a payment request, wherein the payment request includes the payment amount and the trace. Claim 79 -: 79. The process of claim 78, wherein the payment amount is the payment amount less a fee, and wherein trace is the trace. Claim 80 -: 80. The process of claim 78, further, comprising: update the provider virtually with details regarding the payment, wherein the details include the payment amount and the trace. Claim 81 -: 81. The process of claim 64, further, comprising: an EOP file- delivering in the collection, and select an EOP file- associated with the trace; determine the provider's... [id. at 39], Claim 82 -: 82. The process of claim 81, wherein the EOP file- delivery preferences include one of: file transfer, mail, clearinghouse, and provider pick-up. Claim 83 -: 83. The process of claim 81, wherein the EOP file- is delivered within a specified time of the card- generation request being sent. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 84 -: 84. The process of claim 64, wherein the payment is one of the plurality of payments in a batch of payments that are processed in aggregate. (commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 85 -: 85, a payment processing, comprising : a collection including: a card- generating, and a card- payment processing; a processor disposed in communication and configured to issue a plurality of processing instructions from the collection wherein the processor issues instructions from the card- generating, to: obtain a payment card- generation request associated with a payment to a provider via the card- generating, wherein a payment card- generation request is a request to generate a payment card-, and wherein a payment card- is any of: debit card-, credit card-, virtual debit card-, virtual credit card-, reloadable debit card-, one-time credit card-, one-time debit card-; determine a payment amount and a trace by parsing the card- generation request, wherein the trace links a payment with an EOP data file-; generate a payment... associate the payment... [id. at 22], wherein the processor issues instructions from the card- payment processing, to: obtain the card-... generate a card-... determine a payment... pushing- the card-... [id. at 22], Claim 86 -: 86, claim 85, further, comprising: configure the payment card- to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category. Claim 87 -: 87, claim 85, wherein the payment card- involves a single use card-. Claim 88 -: 88, claim 87, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 89 -: 89, claim 85, wherein the payment card- involves a reloadable card-. Claim 90 -: 90, claim 89, wherein generating the payment card- includes generating a card- number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card-. Claim 91 -: 91, claim 90, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the CVV for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 92 -: 92, claim 90, wherein generating the payment card- includes incrementing the expiration date for a card- to generate a unique identifier for the payment. Claim 93 -: 93, claim 85, wherein the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network-, and virtual. Claim 94 -: 94, claim 85, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to a payment network-. Claim 95 -: 95, claim 85, wherein the card- payment request is sent from an issuer to an acquirer. Claim 96 -: 96, claim 95, wherein the acquirer calculates an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 97 -: 97, claim 95, wherein the issuer and the acquirer are the same entity. Claim 98 -: 98, claim 85, further, comprising: calculate an interchange rate associated with a card- based on the provider's merchant identifier. Claim 99 -: 99, claim 85, wherein send a payment request, wherein the payment request includes the payment amount and the trace. Claim 100 -: 100, claim 99, wherein the payment amount is the payment amount less a fee, and wherein trace is the trace. Claim 101 -: 101, claim 99, further, comprising: update the provider virtually with details regarding the payment, wherein the details include the payment amount and the trace. Claim 102 -: 102, claim 85, further, comprising: an EOP file- delivering in the collection, and select an EOP file- associated with the trace; determine the provider's... [id. at 39], Claim 103 -: 103, claim 102, wherein the EOP file- delivery preferences include one of: file transfer, mail, clearinghouse, and provider pick-up. Claim 104 -: 104, claim 102, wherein the EOP file- is delivered within a specified time of the card- generation request being sent. Claim 105 -: 105, claim 85, wherein the payment is one of the plurality of payments in a batch of payments that are processed in aggregate. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: healthcare transaction facilitation platform apparatuses, methods and systems; wherein: e.g; the healthcare transaction facilitation platform apparatuses, methods and systems ("htfp") transforms payment file and eop data inputs via htfp components into ach request, card generation request, card payment request, ach ccd+ request, and eop file outputs as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 22, 43, 64, and 85 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 22 and is described by the steps of independent claim 43 and is described by the steps of independent claim 64 and is described by the steps of independent claim 85.
Claim 22: Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 22 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "processor-readable", "non-transient", "medium", "storing", "component", "storage", "structured", "processor-executable", "datastructure", "via processor", "ACH CCD+", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "via a network", "card", "Level 3", and "pushing". However, independent claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "processor-readable", "non-transient", "medium", "storing", "component", "storage", "structured", "processor-executable", "datastructure", "via processor", "ACH CCD+", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "via a network", "card", "Level 3", and "pushing" of independent claim 22 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing processor-readable, non-transient … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "obtain the card payment processing … card payment processing component", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "determine, via processor, a payment … with the card; and" and "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "A payment processing processor-readable, non-transient … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "A payment processing processor-readable, non-transient … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014), identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017), presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 43: Materially pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 43 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "processor-implemented", "system", "means to", "store ", "component", "processor-executable", "storage", "structured", "datastructure", "via processor", "ACH CCD+", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "via a network", "card", "Level 3", and "pushing". However, independent claim 43 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "processor-implemented", "system", "means to", "store ", "component", "processor-executable", "storage", "structured", "datastructure", "via processor", "ACH CCD+", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "via a network", "card", "Level 3", and "pushing" of independent claim 43 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing processor-implemented system, comprising", "means to store a component collection", "means to process processor-executable instructions … with processor-executable instructions including", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "obtain the card payment processing … card payment processing component", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "determine, via processor, a payment … with the card; and" and "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "means to store a component collection", "means to process processor-executable instructions … with processor-executable instructions including", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "means to store a component collection", "means to process processor-executable instructions … with processor-executable instructions including", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 22 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 43 is ineligible.
Claim 64: Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 64 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "component", "stored", "at least one memory", "storage", "structured", "datastructure", "via processor", "ACH CCD+", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "via a network", "card", "Level 3", and "pushing". However, independent claim 64 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "component", "stored", "at least one memory", "storage", "structured", "datastructure", "via processor", "ACH CCD+", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "via a network", "card", "Level 3", and "pushing" of independent claim 64 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing process, including … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "obtain the card payment processing … card payment processing component", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "determine, via processor, a payment … with the card; and" and "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "A payment processing process, including … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "A payment processing process, including … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "receive a payment settling request … ACH CCD+ payment request", "obtain a request to generate … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 22 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 64 is ineligible.
Claim 85: Particularly pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 85 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "apparatus", "memory", "component", "card", "stored", "datastructure", "via a network", "via processor", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "Level 3", and "pushing". However, independent claim 85 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "apparatus", "memory", "component", "card", "stored", "datastructure", "via a network", "via processor", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "file", "Level 3", and "pushing" of independent claim 85 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a payment processing apparatus, comprising", "a memory", "a component collection in the memory, including", "a card generating component, and", "a card payment processing component", "a processor disposed in communication … stored in the memory", "wherein the processor issues instructions … in the memory, to", "obtain a payment card generation … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "wherein the re-association trace number … an EOP data file", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "wherein the processor issues instructions … in the memory, to", "obtain the card payment processing … card payment processing component", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "determine, via processor, a payment … with the card; and" and "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a memory", "a component collection in the memory, including", "a card generating component, and", "a card payment processing component", "a processor disposed in communication … stored in the memory", "wherein the processor issues instructions … in the memory, to", "obtain a payment card generation … card, one-time debit card", "determine, via processor, a payment … the card generation request", "wherein the re-association trace number … an EOP data file", "generate, via processor, a payment … datastructure for the payment", "associate, via processor, the payment … associated with the card", "wherein the processor issues instructions … in the memory, to", "generate, via processor, a Level … the re-association trace number", "pushing, via a network, the … determined payment request route", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22, electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22, and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016), restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, (Fed. Cir. 2017), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 85 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 22, 43, 64, and 85 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 23-42, 44-63, 65-84, and 86-105 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86: Dependent claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "Codes" of dependent claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 30, 51, 72, and 93: Dependent claims 30, 51, 72, and 93 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "payment network", and "virtual terminal" of dependent claims 30, 51, 72, and 93 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 31, 52, 73, and 94: Dependent claims 31, 52, 73, and 94 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "server", and "payment network" of dependent claims 31, 52, 73, and 94 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 32, 53, 74, and 95: Dependent claims 32, 53, 74, and 95 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "server" of dependent claims 32, 53, 74, and 95 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 38, 59, 80, and 101: Dependent claims 38, 59, 80, and 101 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "virtual terminal" of dependent claims 38, 59, 80, and 101 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 40, 61, 82, and 103: Dependent claims 40, 61, 82, and 103 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "FTP, email" of dependent claims 40, 61, 82, and 103 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86: Dependent claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 add an additional method step of "further, comprising: configure the payment card datastructure to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category Codes". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 23, 44, 65, and 86 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 are ineligible.
Claims 24, 45, 66, and 87: Dependent claims 24, 45, 66, and 87 add an additional method step of "wherein the payment card datastructure involves a single use card". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 24, 45, 66, and 87 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 24, 45, 66, and 87 are ineligible.
Claims 25, 27, 46, 48, 67, 69, 88, and 90: Dependent claims 25, 27, 46, 48, 67, 69, 88, and 90 add additional method steps of "wherein generating the payment card datastructure includes generating a card number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the card". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 25, 27, 46, 48, 67, 69, 88, and 90 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 25, 27, 46, 48, 67, 69, 88, and 90 are ineligible.
Claims 26, 47, 68, and 89: Dependent claims 26, 47, 68, and 89 add an additional method step of "wherein the payment card datastructure involves a reloadable card". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 26, 47, 68, and 89 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 26, 47, 68, and 89 are ineligible.
Claims 28, 49, 70, and 91: Dependent claims 28, 49, 70, and 91 add an additional method step of "wherein generating the payment card datastructure includes incrementing the CVV for a card to generate a unique identifier for the payment". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 28, 49, 70, and 91 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 28, 49, 70, and 91 are ineligible.
Claims 29, 50, 71, and 92: Dependent claims 29, 50, 71, and 92 add an additional method step of "wherein generating the payment card datastructure includes incrementing … expiration date for a card to generate a unique identifier for the payment". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 29, 50, 71, and 92 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 29, 50, 71, and 92 are ineligible.
Claims 30, 51, 72, and 93: Dependent claims 30, 51, 72, and 93 add additional method steps of "wherein the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network, and a virtual terminal". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 30, 51, 72, and 93 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 30, 51, 72, and 93 are ineligible.
Claims 31, 52, 73, and 94: Dependent claims 31, 52, 73, and 94 add an additional method step of "wherein the Level 3 card payment request datastructure is sent from an issuer's server to a payment network's server". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 31, 52, 73, and 94 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 30, 51, 72, and 93 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 30, 51, 72, and 93 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 31, 52, 73, and 94 are ineligible.
Claims 32, 53, 74, and 95: Dependent claims 32, 53, 74, and 95 add an additional method step of "wherein the Level 3 card payment request datastructure is sent from an issuer's server to an acquirer's server". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 32, 53, 74, and 95 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 32, 53, 74, and 95 are ineligible.
Claims 33, 54, 75, and 96: Dependent claims 33, 54, 75, and 96 add an additional method step of "wherein the acquirer's server calculates an interchange rate associated with a card based on the provider's merchant identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 33, 54, 75, and 96 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 33, 54, 75, and 96 are ineligible.
Claims 34, 55, 76, and 97: Dependent claims 34, 55, 76, and 97 add additional method steps of "wherein the issuer and the acquirer are the same entity". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 34, 55, 76, and 97 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 34, 55, 76, and 97 are ineligible.
Claims 35, 56, 77, and 98: Dependent claims 35, 56, 77, and 98 add an additional method step of "further, comprising: calculate an interchange rate associated with a card based on the provider's merchant identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 35, 56, 77, and 98 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 35, 56, 77, and 98 are ineligible.
Claims 36, 57, 78, and 99: Dependent claims 36, 57, 78, and 99 add additional method steps of "wherein send, via a network, an ACH CCD+ … includes the ACH CCD+ payment amount and the ACH CCD+ re-association trace number". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 36, 57, 78, and 99 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22, and electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 36, 57, 78, and 99 are ineligible.
Claims 37, 58, 79, and 100: Dependent claims 37, 58, 79, and 100 add additional method steps of "wherein the ACH CCD+ payment amount is the … and wherein the ACH CCD+ re-association trace number is the re-association trace number". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 37, 58, 79, and 100 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 37, 58, 79, and 100 are ineligible.
Claims 38, 59, 80, and 101: Dependent claims 38, 59, 80, and 101 add additional method steps of "further, comprising: update the provider's virtual terminal with … include the ACH CCD+ payment amount and the ACH CCD+ re-association trace number". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 38, 59, 80, and 101 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 38, 59, 80, and 101 are ineligible.
Claims 39, 60, 81, and 102: Dependent claims 39, 60, 81, and 102 add additional method steps of "an EOP file delivering component in … component collection, and select an EOP file associated with the re-association trace number", "determine the provider's EOP file delivery preferences; and deliver the EOP file per the provider's EOP file delivery preferences". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 39, 60, 81, and 102 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 22; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 22, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 39, 60, 81, and 102 are ineligible.
Claims 40, 61, 82, and 103: Dependent claims 40, 61, 82, and 103 add additional method steps of "wherein the EOP file delivery preferences include one of: FTP, email, clearinghouse, and provider pick-up". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 40, 61, 82, and 103 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 39, 60, 81, and 102 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 39, 60, 81, and 102 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 40, 61, 82, and 103 are ineligible.
Claims 41, 62, 83, and 104: Dependent claims 41, 62, 83, and 104 add an additional method step of "wherein the EOP file is delivered within a specified time of the card generation request being sent". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 41, 62, 83, and 104 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 41, 62, 83, and 104 are ineligible.
Claims 42, 63, 84, and 105: Dependent claims 42, 63, 84, and 105 add an additional method step of "wherein the payment is one of the plurality of payments in a batch of payments that are processed in aggregate". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 42, 63, 84, and 105 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 23, 44, 65, and 86 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 42, 63, 84, and 105 are ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
• The Applicant argued:
"[] Applicant has [] filed a terminal disclaimer to disclaim the term of the patent issuing from the instant Application, so that it does not expire later than the 20 year (plus PTA) term of the parent patent(s). []"
(REMARKS [as abridged], p. 13).
However, the above-quoted arguments have been fully considered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20070012759 A1 by Allarea; Mark P. et al. discloses Electronic card tracking system.
USPGPub No. US 20100138324 A1 by Allen; Robert M. discloses METHOD OF PROVIDING SECURE PAYMENT AND TRANSACTION RECONCILIATION.
USPGPub No. US 20100100480 A1 by Altman; Theresa et al. discloses Apparatus and Method for Bill Payment Card Enrollment.
USPGPub No. US 20040215560 A1 by Amalraj, Peter et al. discloses Integrated payment system and method.
USPAT No. US 5930777 A to Barber; Timothy P. discloses Method of charging for pay-per-access information over a network.
USPGPub No. US 20040249854 A1 by Barnes-Leon, Maria Theresa et al. discloses Common common object.
USPGPub No. US 20060265326 A1 by Barrett; Mary Hogue discloses Method and apparatus for payment without payment card infrastructure.
USPGPub No. US 20040148255 A1 by Beck, Philip D. et al. discloses Time-of-transaction foreign currency conversion.
USPGPub No. US 20070175982 A1 by Bonalle; David S. et al. discloses System, method, and computer program product for issuing and using debit cards.
USPAT No. US 7685067 B1 to Britto; Mark J. et al. discloses Computer-assisted funds transfer system.
USPGPub No. US 20070136211 A1 by Brown; Kerry D. et al. discloses FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH DYNAMIC CARD VERIFICATION VALUES.
USPAT No. US 5950179 A to Buchanan; William B. et al. discloses Method and system for issuing a secured credit card.
USPAT No. US 6088682 A to Burke; Bertram V. discloses Funds distribution system connected with point of sale transactions.
USPAT No. US 6876971 B1 to Burke; Bertram V. discloses Funds distribution system connected with point of sale transaction.
USPGPub No. US 20110218838 A1 by Byce; Chuck et al. discloses ECONOMETRICAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY ANALYSIS APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20120130731 A1 by Canetto; Matt Steven discloses SCHEDULED FUNDS TRANSFER PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20090076954 A1 by Carmody; Michael D. et al. discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SETTLING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20030055783 A1 by Cataline, Glen R. et al. discloses System and method for optimized funding of electronic transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20070005498 A1 by Cataline; Glen R. et al. discloses System and method for optimized funding of electronic transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20070162387 A1 by Cataline; Glen R. et al. discloses System and method for optimized funding of electronic transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20110166872 A1 by Cervenka; Karen L. et al. discloses AUTO-SUBSTANTIATION FOR HEALTHCARE UPON SPONSOR ACCOUNT THROUGH PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM.
USPAT No. US 6021943 A to Chastain; Robert H. discloses Process for executing payment transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20100017235 A1 by Clubb; Brian J. et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING UNCERTAIN TRANSACTION AMOUNTS IN A PAYMENT SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20060085337 A1 by Conforti; Cathleen M. et al. discloses Method and system for using payment cards as a payment option within an online bill payment and presentment solution.
USPGPub No. US 20070007335 A1 by Cracchiolo; Christopher P. et al. discloses Healthcare Card Closed Loop Network System.
USPAT No. US 7840486 B2 to D'Agostino; John discloses System and method for performing secure credit card purchases.
USPGPub No. US 20110258004 A1 by DEAN; Tom et al. discloses Reconciliation , Automation and Tagging of Healthcare Information.
USPAT No. US 6105008 A to Davis; Virgil M. et al. discloses Internet loading system using smart card.
USPAT No. US 6282522 B1 to Davis; Virgil M. et al. discloses Internet payment system using smart card.
USPAT No. US 6456984 B1 to Demoff; Jeff S. et al. discloses Method and system for providing temporary credit authorizations.
USPGPub No. US 20110208659 A1 by Easterly; Frank et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING SECURE TRANSACTIONS USING AN INTERNET ACCESSIBLE DEVICE AND APPLICATION.
USPGPub No. US 20080219421 A1 by Enriquez; Eugenio Donato Renato Limlengco discloses System and Method for Transferring Credit Between Subscribers of Differing Telecommunications Carriers.
USPGPub No. US 20080021817 A1 by Epple; Renee et al. discloses Method, apparatus, and computer program product for repository data maximization.
USPGPub No. US 20030028481 A1 by Flitcroft, Daniel I. et al. discloses Credit card system and method.
USPAT No. US 5914472 A to Foladare; Mark Jeffrey et al. discloses Credit card spending authorization control system.
USPGPub No. US 20100274719 A1 by Fordyce, III; Edward W. discloses Delayed Settlement Transactions.
USPAT No. US 6000832 A to Franklin; D. Chase et al. discloses Electronic online commerce card with customer generated transaction proxy number for online transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20110093387 A1 by Fuerstenberg; Zack et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NON-CREDIT CARD BILLERS TO ACCEPT CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS.
USPGPub No. US 20110119077 A1 by GICE; Jon et al. discloses VIRTUAL MEDICAL SELF MANAGEMENT TOOL.
USPGPub No. US 20030061171 A1 by Gilbert, Kevin et al. discloses System for and method of effecting an electronic transaction.
USPGPub No. US 20050108121 A1 by Gravett, Amber et al. discloses Open loop stored value system.
USPGPub No. US 20050108159 A1 by Gravett, Amber et al. discloses Open loop stored value account configuration.
USPGPub No. US 20120036042 A1 by Graylin; Will et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CHECKOUT AND CUSTOMER DATA CAPTURE IN COMMERCE APPLICATIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20100205091 A1 by Graziano; Joseph M. et al. discloses AUTOMATED PAYMENT TRANSACTION SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20140074497 A1 by Griffin; Beth M. et al. discloses SELF-RECONCILED MULTI-PART TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20130166332 A1 by Hammad; Ayman discloses MOBILE WALLET STORE AND SERVICE INJECTION PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20040030647 A1 by Hansen, Kurt L. et al. discloses Staged transactions systems and methods.
USPGPub No. US 20120303425 A1 by Katzin; Edward et al. discloses MERCHANT-CONSUMER BRIDGING PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPAT No. US 8494938 B1 to Kazenas; Joseph A. discloses Claims card.
USPGPub No. US 20070175984 A1 by Khandaker; Omar F. et al. discloses OPEN-LOOP GIFT CARD SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20120123940 A1 by Killian; Patrick L. et al. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR UNIVERSAL PAYMENT ACCOUNT TRANSLATION.
USPGPub No. US 20070294168 A1 by King; Daniel discloses Router-based remittance systems and methods.
USPAT No. US 8392208 B1 to Klieman; Michael S. et al. discloses Method and system for health expense verification and processing.
USPGPub No. US 20050137972 A1 by Krumlauf, Bruce E. discloses Methods and systems for the processing of credit payment data.
USPGPub No. US 20070282741 A1 by Kumar; Vinod et al. discloses Order system payment routing.
USPGPub No. US 20020016745 A1 by Kuwahara, Toru et al. discloses Settlement intermediation processing apparatus, storage medium in which a program for settlement intermediation processing is stored, computer program for settlement intermediation, online shop apparatus, and on-line shopping method and system.
USPGPub No. US 20110022514 A1 by Lal; Raghav et al. discloses Loyalty Rewards Optimization Bill Payables and Receivables Service.
USPGPub No. US 20100205078 A1 by Lawrence; Kimberly et al. discloses PUSH PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING BILLING FILE EXCHANGE.
USPAT No. US 6327578 B1 to Linehan; Mark discloses Four-party credit/debit payment protocol.
USPGPub No. US 20090177579 A1 by Ling; James discloses Transaction System Supporting Dynamic Currency Conversion.
USPGPub No. US 20100088206 A1 by Lister; James E. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS ELECTRONIC PAYMENT PROCESSING.
USPGPub No. US 20070282743 A1 by Lovelett; John M. et al. discloses Electronic Transaction Apparatus and Method.
USPGPub No. US 20120239556 A1 by Magruder; Andrew M. et al. discloses LATENCY PAYMENT SETTLEMENT APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20110042456 A1 by Masaryk; Michal et al. discloses Method and System of Electronic Payment Transaction, In Particular By Using Contactless Payment Means.
USPGPub No. US 20060253390 A1 by McCarthy; James Alan et al. discloses Private label purchase card acceptance systems and methods.
USPGPub No. US 20100088207 A1 by McLaughlin; Edward et al. discloses Method and System for Linkage of Generally Available Healthcare Accounts to Credit Card.
USPGPub No. US 20070265887 A1 by McLaughlin; Mark R. et al. discloses Integrated electronic business systems.
USPGPub No. US 20020120563 A1 by McWilliam, William J. et al. discloses System and method for effecting anonymous payments.
USPGPub No. US 20090182654 A1 by Mullen; Matthew et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA COMPLETION INCLUDING PUSH IDENTIFIER.
USPGPub No. US 20090173782 A1 by Muscato; Michael A. discloses Dynamic Card Validation Value.
USPGPub No. US 20100088204 A1 by Nambiar; Anant et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DYNAMIC INTERCHANGE PRICING.
USPGPub No. US 20100250376 A1 by Nandiraju; Srikanth discloses VIRTUAL TERMINAL FOR MOBILE DEVICES.
USPGPub No. US 20120253989 A1 by Otruba; Richard A. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PAYMENT BY VIRTUAL CREDIT CARD.
USPGPub No. US 20080099556 A1 by Park; Jung Woong discloses Card Having Password Input Key.
USPGPub No. US 20110270693 A1 by Paschini; Miles et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONIC PREPAID ACCOUNT REPLENISHMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20110225058 A1 by Patterson; Barbara E. et al. discloses MESSAGING INCLUDING VALUE ACCOUNT CONVERSION.
USPGPub No. US 20080162313 A1 by Patton; John M. discloses INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION SOLUTION.
USPGPub No. US 20070185795 A1 by Petrime; Kammie et al. discloses System and method for customizing financial instruments.
USPAT No. US 5946669 A to Polk; John discloses Method and apparatus for payment processing using debit-based electronic funds transfer and disbursement processing using addendum-based electronic data interchange.
USPAT No. US 7225155 B1 to Polk; John discloses Method and apparatus for payment processing using debit-based electronic funds transfer and disbursement processing using addendum-based electronic data interchange.
USPGPub No. US 20120253852 A1 by Pourfallah; Stacy S. et al. discloses RESTRICTED-USE ACCOUNT PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20170039549 A1 by QUENTIN; Pierre discloses METHOD FOR PROCESSING TRANSACTION DATA, DEVICE AND CORRESPONDING PROGRAM.
USPGPub No. US 20070272739 A1 by RANDAZZA; JOSEPH R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20080290155 A1 by RANDAZZA; JOSEPH R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20080040265 A1 by Rackley III; Brady Lee et al. discloses Methods and Systems For Making a Payment Via A Stored Value Card in a Mobile Environment.
USPGPub No. US 20110238553 A1 by Raj; Ashwin et al. discloses ELECTRONIC ACCOUNT-TO-ACCOUNT FUNDS TRANSFER.
USPGPub No. US 20070282690 A1 by Randazza; Joseph R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20080275799 A1 by Randazza; Joseph R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20110320316 A1 by Randazza; Joseph R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20050218213 A1 by Rasnake, Lucy M. et al. discloses System and method for mailing account cards.
USPGPub No. US 20050252961 A1 by Rasti, Mehran Randall discloses Charge card and debit transactions using a variable charge number.
USPGPub No. US 20090119190 A1 by Realini; Carol discloses Virtual Pooled Account for Mobile Banking.
USPGPub No. US 20100145848 A1 by Robbins, JR.; John J. et al. discloses System and Method for Providing Credit Card with Back-End Payment Filtering.
USPGPub No. US 20070228146 A1 by Rogers; Lisa H. et al. discloses Managing Medical-Related Financial Data.
USPGPub No. US 20120124496 A1 by Rose; Mark et al. discloses GEOGRAPHIC VOLUME ANALYTICS APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20080097810 A1 by Sadowski; Brian R. et al. discloses System and Method of Managing Workflow for Express Creation and Initialization of Merchant Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20080097879 A1 by Sadowski; Brian R. et al. discloses System and Method of Interfacing Web Services to Express Creation and Initialization of Merchant Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20080097897 A1 by Sadowski; Brian R. et al. discloses System and Method of Express Creation and Initialization of Merchant Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20120233073 A1 by Salmon; Diane et al. discloses Universal Value Exchange Apparatuses, Methods and Systems.
USPGPub No. US 20060022033 A1 by Smets; Patrick et al. discloses Method and system using a bitmap for passing contactless payment card transaction variables in standardized data formats.
USPGPub No. US 20020194027 A1 by Smith, Thomas L. discloses EOB distribution system.
USPGPub No. US 20020120846 A1 by Stewart, Whitney Hilton et al. discloses Electronic payment and authentication system with debit and identification data verification and electronic check capabilities.
USPGPub No. US 20040054622 A1 by Strayer, Allen C. et al. discloses Method and system for merchant processing of purchase card transactions with expanded card type acceptance.
USPGPub No. US 20020062224 A1 by THORSEN, MICHAEL et al. discloses HEALTHCARE PAYMENT, REPORTING AND DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20090125429 A1 by Takayama; Hisashi discloses Mobile electronic commerce system.
USPGPub No. US 20110313926 A1 by Templeton; Randy J. discloses System and method for facilitating large scale payment transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20120136790 A1 by Templeton; Randy J. discloses System and method for facilitating large scale payment transactions including selecting communication routes.
USPAT No. US 10540675 B2 to Tietzen; Terrance Patrick et al. discloses Method, system and computer program for client acquisition and surveying.
USPGPub No. US 20120290375 A1 by Truong; Phuc et al. discloses Multi-Consumer Classification and Automated Rewards-Based System.
USPGPub No. US 20070233615 A1 by Tumminaro; John discloses Member-Supported Mobile Payment System.
USPGPub No. US 20070255653 A1 by Tumminaro; John et al. discloses Mobile Person-to-Person Payment System.
USPAT No. US 5991750 A to Watson; Craig discloses System and method for pre-authorization of individual account transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20110302080 A1 by White; Brigette et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VALUE INTERCHANGE PRICING.
USPGPub No. US 20050182724 A1 by Willard, Rick L. discloses INCREMENTAL NETWORK ACCESS PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD UTILIZING DEBIT CARDS.
USPGPub No. US 20050192892 A1 by Willard, Rick L. discloses AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE COMPATIBLE LOADABLE DEBIT CARD SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20080077438 A1 by Yanak; Edward et al. discloses ELECTRONIC PAYMENT DELIVERY SERVICE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 10:30 AM to 6:30 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 04/24/2026
Prosecution Insights