DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
374
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(f) states; Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Applicant’s claims use CPUs in their ordinary capacity. Additionally multi-chip CPUs are conventional. For example the Pentium D (released 20+ years ago) is a multi-chip CPU. Using generic computer hardware in its ordinary capacity does not inegrate a judicial exception.
Argument (page 22-23):
PNG
media_image2.png
293
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
Machines are not considered abstract ideas. Automating manual processes does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017.
Argument (page 26-27)
PNG
media_image3.png
100
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image4.png
218
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
Computer components are manufactures. However, adding them to an abstract idea does not provide a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f) states; Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Applicant’s claims use CPUs in their ordinary capacity. Additionally multi-chip CPUs are conventional. For example the Pentium D (released 20+ years ago) is a multi-chip CPU. Using generic computer hardware in its ordinary capacity does not inegrate a judicial exception.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
596
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees that MPEP 2106.05(f) is not relevant. See MPEP 2106.05(f), which states :
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Other arguments made have been made have been addressed previously. See previous responses.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 9710799 B2 in view of Reed (US 20060113376 A1.
Application claims 1-7 are fully disclosed by patented claims 1-4, 1, 5, 6, except for the plurality of different APLs associated with different payment accounts and there being first and second approved product lists, one of which is most preferred. However Reed discloses a plurality of APLs associated with different payment accounts applied to POS terminals (paragraph 5) and certain payment accounts being preferred (paragraph 11), wherein one of first and second approved product lists are most preferred (paragraph 5, paragraph 11).. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claims by processing transactions from multiple account types associated with different APLs and applying preferences as appropriate. The motivation for the combination is to enable a consumer of medical service and products to access funds available in an FSA or HRA healthcare spending account (paragraph 3).
13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 9710799 B2 in view of Reed (US 20060113376 A1 and Cardinal (US 6757664 B1)
Application claims 13-20 are fully disclosed by patented claims 7-14, except for the multi-chip CPU and the plurality of different APLs associated with different payment accounts and there being first and second approved product lists, one of which is most preferred. However Reed discloses a plurality of APLs associated with different payment accounts applied to POS terminals (paragraph 5) and certain payment accounts being preferred (paragraph 11), wherein one of first and second approved product lists are most preferred (paragraph 5, paragraph 11).. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claims by processing transactions from multiple account types associated with different APLs and applying preferences as appropriate. The motivation for the combination is to enable a consumer of medical service and products to access funds available in an FSA or HRA healthcare spending account (paragraph 3).
Patented claims fails to disclose a multi-chip CPU. However in an analogous art Cardinal discloses multi-chip processors (column 5 10-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with the patented claims by using a multi-chip processor. The motivation for the combination is improved performance due to multiple cores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 recite:
1. (Currently Amended) A transaction sequencer, comprising: a central processor unit; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the central processor unit, causes the central processor unit to:receive a payment transaction message comprising information about a first purchase item, wherein the payment transaction message was created by a point-of-sale (POS) after a filtering step that determined that the first purchase item is associated with a master approved item list,search a plurality of different approved product lists using the information about the first purchase item, wherein the plurality of different approved product lists comprise a first approved product list and a second approved product list, wherein the first approved product list or the second approved product list is a first most preferred approved product list, and wherein each of the plurality of different approved product lists are associated with a different payment account,create a first transaction based on finding the first purchase item in the first most preferred approved product list, transmit the first transaction to a first transaction processing system, receive a first response from the first transaction processing system, bundle the first response in a unified response, and transmit the unified response.
2. (Currently Amended) The transaction sequencer of claim 1, wherein the payment transaction message further comprises information about a second purchase item, wherein the payment transaction message was created by the point-of-sale after a filtering step that determined that the second purchase item is associated with the master approved item list, wherein the central processor unit further:creates a second transaction based on finding the second purchase item in the second approved product list, transmits the second transaction to a second transaction processing system, receives a second response to the second transaction processing system, bundles the second response in the unified response, and transmits the unified response.
3. (Original) The transaction sequencer of claim 2, wherein the first transaction processing system and the second transaction processing system are the same transaction processing system.
4. (Original) The transaction sequencer of claim 1, wherein the payment transaction message identifies a payment entity, wherein the payment entity is associated with the first approved product list and with the second approved product list.
5. (Original) The transaction sequencer of claim 4, wherein the first purchase item is identified in both the first approved product list and in the second approved product list, wherein the first transaction requests payment from a first payment account associated with the first approved product list based on evaluating a rule defined by the payment entity.
6. (Original) The transaction sequencer of claim 1, wherein the first product list comprises one of a food stamp approved product list, a flexible spending account (FSA) approved product list, a wellness program approved product list, or a women, infants, and children (WIC) approved product list.
7. (Original) The transaction sequencer of claim 1, wherein the payment transaction message is received from a point-of-sale terminal and the unified response is sent to the point-of-sale terminal.
But for the recitation of the underlined additional elements (memory, processor/CPU, transaction sequencer, processing system, application, terminal), claims 1-7 recite a method of organizing human activity. Processing a financial transaction between different entities in accordance with rules would be considered a commercial interaction, which is a type of human activity.
The recited additional elements (memory, processor/CPU, transaction sequencer, processing system, application, POS terminal) are all recited at a high degree of generality such that they amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) the additional elements alone in combination do not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Thus for the reasons above, claims 1-7 are considered to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 13-20 recite:
13. (Currently Amended) A method of payment transaction handling, comprising:
Executing, by a transaction sequencer’s central processor unit an application which causes the central processor unit to perform the steps of: receiving, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit¸ wherein the CPU comprises a plurality of computer chips configured for computer processing, a first transaction message comprising identification of a first purchase item, wherein the first purchase item is identified in a first master approved product list propagated to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals after a filtering step by a first POS terminal that determined that the first purchase item is associated with the first master approved product list, wherein the first master approved product list is sent to a first POS terminal and a second master approved product list is propagated and sent to a second POS terminal; searching, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a first approved product list for the first purchase item, where the first approved product list is associated with a first payment program identified in the first transaction message and all the items in the first approved product list are identified in the first master approved product list; when the first approved product list comprises the first purchase item, completing, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a payment transaction for the first purchase item; receiving, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a second transaction message comprising identification of a second purchase item, wherein the second purchase item is identified in the first master approved product list; searching, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a second approved product list for the second purchase item, where the second approved product list is associated with a second payment program identified in the second transaction message, where all the items in the second approved product list are identified in the first master approved product list, transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a payment transaction for the second purchase item.
14. (Original) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 13, wherein the first payment plan is identified by a bank identification number (BIN) in the first transaction message.
15. (Currently Amended) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 13, wherein the first transaction message comprises identification of a third purchase item, wherein the third item is identified in the first master approved product list, further comprising:searching, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a third approved product list for the third purchase item, where the third approved product list is associated with the first payment program identified in the first transaction message and all the items in the third approved product list are identified in the first master approved product list; and when the third approved product list comprises the third purchase item, completing, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a payment transaction for the third purchase item.
16. (Currently Amended) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 15, wherein completing the payment transaction for the first purchase item comprises creating, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a first ISO 8583 transaction and transmitting the first ISO 8583 transaction to a first transaction processing system and wherein completing the payment transaction for the third purchase item comprises creating, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit, a second ISO 8583 transaction and transmitting the second ISO 8583 transaction to a second transaction processing system.
17. (Original) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 16, wherein the first transaction processing system is the same as the second transaction processing system.
18. (Currently Amended) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 15, wherein completing the payment transaction for the first purchase item and completing the payment transaction for the third purchase item comprising stitching together, by the transaction sequencer's central processor unit a first transaction response associated with the payment transaction for the first purchase item with a second transaction response associated with the payment transaction for the third purchase item.
19. (Original) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 13, wherein the first approved product list is one of a food stamp approved product list, a flexible spending account (FSA) approved product list, a wellness program approved product list, or a women, infants, and children (WIC) approved product list.
20. (Original) The method of payment transaction handling of claim 13, wherein the first transaction message comprises universal product code (UPC) information, price information, quantity information about the first purchase item.
But for the recitation of the underlined additional elements (payment program, processing system, transaction sequencer, CPU, terminals), claims 13-20 recite a method of organizing human activity. Processing a financial transaction between different entities in accordance with rules would be considered a commercial interaction, which is a type of human activity.
The recited additional elements are all recited at a high degree of generality such that they amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) the additional elements alone in combination do not provide a practical application or significantly more. Additionally a multi-chip processor does not provide significantly more because it is well-understood routine and conventional. See Cardinal (US 6757664 B1) column 5 10-35.
Thus, for the reasons above, claims 13-20 are considered to be directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marshall (US 20100010901 A1) in view of Wade (US 20120150697 A1), Pletz (US 20140297307 A1) and Reed (US 20060113376 A1).
Note: “wherein the payment transaction message was created by a point-of-sale (POS) after a filtering step that determined that the first purchase item is associated with a master approved item list” is not given patentable weight because it fails to further limit the structure of the transaction sequencer. See MPEP 2111.04. The claim only requires the transaction sequencer to receive a message. How that message is derived is outside the scope of the claim as written.
Regarding claim 1, Marshall discloses:
1. A transaction sequencer (fig. 1 server 104), comprising:
a CPU (paragraph 24 server inherently includes processor);
a non-transitory memory (paragraph 24 hard disk); and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that (paragraph 24 computer programs), when executed by the CPU, causes the CPU to:
receive a payment transaction message (fig. 1 server receives message 114, fig. 2 212) comprising information about a first purchase item (paragraph 30 A step 210 assembles a financial transaction request message that includes identification codes for the cardholder, products, services, and merchant, and the retail prices for the products and/or services.), wherein the payment transaction message was created by a point-of-sale (POS) after a filtering step that assured that the first purchase item is associated with a master approved item list (limitation not given patentable weight. See note above),
searches a plurality of different approved product lists using the information about the first purchase item, wherein the plurality of different approved product lists comprise a first approved product list and a second approved product list (fig. 2 218, paragraph 32 qualified products, conditionally; lists correspond to a particular FSA account),
create a first transaction based on finding the first purchase item in the first approved product list (fig. 2 224)
Marshall fails to disclose:
transmit the first transaction to a first transaction processing system, receives a first response from the first transaction processing system, bundles the first response in a unified response, and transmits the unified response.
Marshall does have a transaction processing system, but omits the details of how the processing is done. However in an analogous art, Wade discloses transmit the first transaction to a first transaction processing system, receives a first response from the first transaction processing system as well as transmits a second transaction to a second transaction processing system so as to receive a second response (paragraph 53-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Marshall by using multiple transaction processors. The motivation for the combination is save significant expense (paragraph 3).
Marshall discloses transmitting a unified response (124), but fails to disclose it being a bundling of different response messages. However in an analogous art, Pletz discloses bundling to create a unified response (paragraph 84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Marshall as modified by bundling the response messages. The motivation for the combination is improved transaction processing (paragraph 25).
Marshall as modified fails to disclose and Reed discloses a plurality of APLs associated with different payment accounts (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Marshall as modified by processing transactions from multiple account types associated with different APLs. The motivation for the combination is to enable a consumer of medical service and products to access funds available in an FSA or HRA healthcare spending account (paragraph 3).
Marshall as modified also fails to disclose one of the first approved product lists or the second approved product lists being a first most preferred approved product list and the first transaction being created based on the most preferred list. However Reed discloses funding from a particular account based on priority (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Marshall as modified by funding from particular lists based on priority (thus one of the lists would be most preferred). The motivation for the combination is to permit the employee to have a greater chance of having remaining money in their account at the end of a plan year (paragraph 11).
Note: The limitation “wherein the payment transaction message was created by the point-of-sale” is not given patentable weight for the same reasons as the similar limitation from claim 1. See earlier discussion.
Claim 2 is rejected for essentially the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 2 repeats steps from claim 1 but for a second item. Marshall discloses multiple different transactions for multiple items (see paragraph 26 at least).
Regarding claim 3, Marshall as modified with Wade does teach multiple transaction processing system. The combination of Marshall Wade and Pletz as a whole does not explicitly state that transactions should use the same transaction processor. However given the limited transaction processor of Marshall as modified, it would have been obvious that multiple transactions could be processed using the same one. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 “Obvious to try” rationale and see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that transactions can be conducted use the same processor or different processors.
Regarding claim 4, Marshall disclose wherein the payment transaction message identifies a payment entity (paragraph 30 cardholder), wherein the payment entity is associated with the first approved product list and with the second approved product list (fig. 2 customer products are either qualified or conditionally qualified).
Regarding claim 5, Marshall et al. discloses the transaction sequencer of claim 4, wherein the first purchase item is identified in both the first approved product list and in the second approved product list (Figure 7A, depicts where a product can be ona qualified or conditionally qualified list as well as an employee health condition list, therefore it can be determined that a first product can appear on a qualified product list and a employee health condition list), wherein the first transaction requests payment from a first payment account associated with the first approved product list based on evaluating a rule defined by the payment entity (pg.3, 4 [0040] discusses employer company policies as they relate to the use of cards 206 by employee cardholders and corresponding FSA's. A step 508 abstracts these policies into decision rules that a computer can apply to transaction requests. A step 510 puts these company policies into a database so they can be accessed by employer ID and/or cardholder ID later to make an authorization of a financial transaction).
Regarding claim 6, Marshall discloses wherein the first product list comprises one of a food stamp approved product list, a flexible spending account (FSA) approved product list, a wellness program approved product list, or a women, infants, and children (WIC) approved product list (paragraph 26 FSA).
Regarding claim 7, Marshall discloses wherein the payment transaction message is received from a point-of-sale terminal and the unified response is sent to the point-of-sale terminal (fig. 1 114 message and 124 response).
Claims 13-15, 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marshall (US 20100010901 A1) in view of Reed (US 20060113376 A1) and Cardinal.
Note: “wherein the first purchase item is identified in a first master approved product list propagated to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals after a filtering step by a first POS terminal that determined that the first purchase item is associated with the master approved product list” is not given patentable weight because it fails to further limit the recited steps See MPEP 2111.04. The same finding applies to “all the items in the first approved product list are identified in the master approved product list” and “wherein the second purchase item is identified in the master approved product list”. Applicant should draft steps that implement the relevant concepts.
Regarding claim 13, Marshall discloses:
13. A method of payment transaction handling, comprising
Executing, by a transactions sequencer’s CPU, an application which causes the CPU to perform the steps of (paragraph 24):
Receiving, by a transaction sequencer’s CPU, a first transaction message (fig. 1 114) comprising identification of a first purchase item (paragraph 30), wherein the first purchase item is identified in a first master approved product list propagated to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals (paragraph 33), wherein the first master approved product list is sent to a a first POS terminal and a second master approved product list is propagated and sent to a second POS terminal (paragraph 33 each POS terminal receives a plurality of lists); searching, by the transaction sequencer’s CPU, a first approved product list for the first purchase item (fig. 2 check product IDs for qualified items), where the first approved product list is associated with a first payment program identified in the first transaction message (paragraph 31) and all the items in the first approved product list are identified in the master approved product list ((fig. 2 218 qualified); when the first approved product list comprises the first purchase item, completing, by a transaction sequencer’s CPU, a payment transaction for the first purchase item (fig. 2 224->230); receiving, by the transaction sequencer’s CPU, a second transaction message comprising identification of a second purchase item (fig. 1 114 can be repetitive, see paragraph 26), wherein the second purchase item is identified in the master approved product list (fig. 2 218 conditionally qualified); searching, by the transaction sequencer’s CPU, a second approved product list for the second purchase item(fig. 2 218 conditionally qualified), where the second approved product list is associated with a second payment program identified in the second transaction message (paragraph 31), where all the items in the second approved product list are identified in the master approved product list (fig. 2 218), and where the first approved product list is different from the second approved product list (fig. 2 approved product list vs conditional list); and when the second approved product list comprises the second purchase item, completing, by the transaction sequencer’s CPU, a payment transaction for the second purchase item (fig. 2 224->230).
Marshall fails to disclose and Reed discloses a plurality of APLs associated with different payment accounts (paragraph 5) each associated with a respective priority (paragraph 11), wherein the first approved product list or the second approved product list is a first most preferred approved product list (paragraph 11 discloses prioritization of payment accounts, paragraph 5 shows payment accounts associated with product lists). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Marshall by processing transactions from multiple account types associated with different APLs. The motivation for the combination is to enable a consumer of medical service and products to access funds available in an FSA or HRA healthcare spending account (paragraph 3).
Marshall still fails to disclose a multi-chip CPU. However in an analogous art Cardinal discloses multi-chip processors (column 5 10-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Marshall by using a multi-chip processor. The motivation for the combination is improved performance due to multiple cores.
Regarding claim 14, Marshall discloses 14. The method of payment transaction handling of claim 13, wherein the first payment plan is identified by a bank identification number (BIN) in the first transaction message (paragraph 30).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13. The added limitations just repeats limitations for a third item. Marshall clearly discloses an arbitrary number of items which for any retail store will be many more than three (see paragraphs 26-33 at least).
Regarding claim 19, Marshall discloses the method of payment transaction handling of claim 13, wherein the first approved product list is one of a food stamp approved product list, a flexible spending account (FSA) approved product list, a wellness program approved product list, or a women, infants, and children (WIC) approved product list (paragraph 26 FSA)
Claims 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Reed, Cardinal and Wade.
Regarding claim 16, Marshall discloses the method of payment transaction handling of claim 15. However, Marshall as modified is silent regarding a payment transaction handling method wherein completing the payment transaction for the first purchase item comprises creating by the transaction sequencer’s CPU a first ISO 8583 transaction and transmitting_by the transaction sequencer the first ISO 8583 transaction to a first transaction processing system and wherein completing the payment transaction for the third purchase item comprises creating by the transaction sequencer’s CPU a second ISO 8583 transaction and transmitting by the transaction sequencer the second ISO 8583 transaction to a second transaction processing system.
Wade teaches wherein completing the payment transaction for the first purchase item comprises creating by the transaction sequencer’s CPU a first ISO 8583 transaction and transmitting by the transaction sequencer the first ISO 8583 transaction to a first transaction processing system and wherein completing the payment transaction for the third purchase item comprises creating by the transaction sequencer’s CPU a second ISO 8583 transaction and transmitting by the transaction sequencer the second ISO 8583 transaction to a second transaction processing system (pg.3, 4 [0046] discusses Incoming and outgoing communications between the retailer 24 and the adjudication processor 10 can via an ISO 8583 message format, an XML web services format, and the like, all as real time interchanges).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of transaction processing at the time of the invention to modify the system of Marshall to include the ability to communicate with the POS system using ISO standards as taught by Wade to provide several retailers to participate in restricted payment programs created by several health plans (or sponsors), without having the burden of managing the multiple lists of eligible items (pg.1, 4 [0012]).
Regarding claim 17, Marshall discloses the method of payment transaction handling of claim 16, wherein the first transaction processing system is the same as the second transaction processing system (Figure 1, POS 102).
Regarding claim 20, Marshall as modfiied discloses the method of payment transaction handling of claim 13. Marshall teaches wherein the first transaction message comprises universal product code (UPC) information, (pg.2, § [0027] discusses the goods and/or services 112 are uniquely identified with industry standard Universal Product Codes (UPC).
However, Marshall is silent regarding wherein the first transaction comprises price information, quantity information about the first purchase item.
Wade teaches a transaction message comprises price information, quantity information about the first purchase item (pg.4, 4 [0065] discusses transaction information includes quantity and net price).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of transaction processing at the time of the invention to modify the system of Marshall to include the ability to format a transaction message to include product quantity and net price of a product as taught by Wade to provide several retailers to participate in
restricted payment programs created by several health plans (or sponsors), without having the burden of managing the multiple lists of eligible items (pg.1, 4 [0012]).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Reed, Cardinal and Pletz.
Regarding claim 18, Marshall as modifed discloses transaction responses for first and third items, but fails to disclose stitched together the responses. However in an analogous art, Pletz discloses bundling responses to create a unified response (paragraph 84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Marshall by have the transaction sequencer CPU bundle the response messages. The motivation for the combination is improved transaction processing (paragraph 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Antoo (US 20100057611 A1) discloses a system for processing food stamp payments. Brown (US 20060074784 A1) discloses a POS network for processing stored value account payments with virtual coupons. Carlisle (US 5649118 A) discloses a card that uses different payment accounts depending on product lists. Hawkins (US 8515873 B2) discloses a WIC processing system. Hoblit (US 20060289636 A1) discloses a payment card that restricts purchases of various items. Reed (US 20060113376 A1) discloses a processing system that restricts purchases to specific items. Sulaiman (US 20060047569 A1) discloses a system for ensuring voucher purchasing compliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights