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 (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks received 6/25/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-20, and 22-24 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 22-24 have been added.
This action is Non-Final.
Claim Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-20, and 22-241 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims not reciting an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I. Additionally, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims providing additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem and include elements beyond what is well-understood, routine and conventional. The Examiner respectfully fails to find Applicant arguments persuasive and respectfully maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong I Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I2 and respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments do not specifically refute Examiner’s position in the previous final rejection that “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” are considered abstract fundamental economic practices, or that “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” are positively recited by the claims, as Applicant’s arguments instead more broadly assert the claims do not recite an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I, per merely stating “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion that the claims recite an abstract idea…”, and instead draws attention to limitations including both abstract elements and additional elements recited by the claims under the lens of step 2A as a whole. I.e., Applicant fails to provide any substantive argument specifically addressing as to why the limitations drawn to “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” identified by examiner in their step 2A Prong I analysis are (a) not abstract, (b) not recitation of commercial / legal interactions, or (c) not present within the claim limitations identified by examiner. The examiner respectfully presses that “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” falls under commercial / legal interactions, and that the claim limitations previously identified positively recite limitations drawn to the aforementioned abstract idea specified. Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s arguments are not convincing when they fail to provide any substantive underlying reasoning or rationale outlining Applicant’s position as to why the concept of “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” identified by examiner is, at least one of: (a) non-abstract, (b) not falling under either commercial / legal interactions, and/or (c) not present within the claim limitations identified by examiner. Applicant noting that the claims requiring computer components distinct from the abstract idea identified by examiner in their step 2A Prong I analysis does not sufficiently address these particular deficiencies in the Applicant’s arguments drawn to the step 2A Prong I analysis, as "[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer" – see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regardless of Applicant’s asserted basis for eligibility drawn to the computer components / additional elements, Examiner fails to see how the aforementioned claim are not recitations of commercial interactions under step 2A Prong I. The Examiner does not contend that the claimed additional elements themselves are abstract. However, the mere inclusion of claim limitations drawn to computer components / additional elements does not necessarily preclude the same aforementioned claims from being considered to recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis – again, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), emphasis added: ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This fact is evident in light of the sequence of steps performed during the revised Alice/Mayo test – see MPEP §2106.04(II)(A) showing a visual summary of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
Examiner respectfully submits that the claim limitations do not merely involve an exception, but rather include positively recited steps of “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…”, as previously identified by Examiner. In other words, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims clearly recite “consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…”, not just mere involvement – this stance is supported by the following:
The pre-amble of method claim 1, and system claim 15 characterize the method, and system as being for “…completing a transaction…”.
Similarly, the title of the instant application is “Completing a Transaction”.
The “Technical Field” section of Applicant’s specification discloses the system and method of invention is generally for “…completing a transaction…”.
Furthermore, the claims limitations include positive recitations of “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” such as:
“…generating … consent request data associated with the transaction for a consumer, wherein the transaction is associated with a first action and one or more subsequent actions for which consent from the consumer would otherwise be required, … and wherein the consent request data corresponds to a request for the consumer to provide a consent start date and a consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction …
…receiving …consent data from the consumer, wherein the consent data corresponds to the consent start date and the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction …
verifying, …the first authorization request data if the first specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date for the transaction and the same as or earlier than the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction;
receiving, …, first authorisation data from an issuer …after verifying the first authorisation request data, wherein the first authorisation data corresponds to an authorisation to complete the first action of the transaction and includes … consumer data;”.
Accordingly, in view of the above aspects of Applicant’s disclosure (i. – iv., above,) it is clear that the Applicant’s claimed invention goes beyond mere involvement of the abstract “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” recited; steps to “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…” are positively recited within the scope of the claims. Given the aforementioned disclosure provided by applicant and the claims including positive recitation of “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…”, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the express purpose of the claimed invention generally corresponds to “…consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements…”.
Examiner notes Applicant’s reliance upon the additional elements recited in step2A Prong I are possibly implying a stance that the claims indicate a clear improvement to technology or some computer functionality even at step 2A Prong I, and thus do not need to undergo the full eligibility analysis (see MPEP § 2106.06(b)). However, the examiner notes streamlined analysis is optional and respectfully submits streamlined analysis should not be performed for the instant claims, because there are no claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, which clearly improve technology, or are otherwise self-evidently patent-eligible – see MPEP §2106.06(b): “Only when the claims clearly improve technology or computer functionality, or otherwise have self-evident eligibility, should the streamlined analysis be used”. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully submits that a full eligibility analysis should be performed, consistent with MPEP § 2106.06(b).
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as the reasons provided in the 101 rejections further below, Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes – the claims recite an abstract idea of within the realm of commercial and legal interactions, including legal agreements in the form of consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date, and personal information access).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong II Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant arguments3 that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field4 and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
When viewed as a whole, the claims amount to merely invoking computers as tools to perform an abstract business process of processing reimbursements and merely limit the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a computer network) – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h).
Applicant’s specification and claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)).
Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem, as the digital signatures being machine verifiable and tamper-resistant is nothing beyond what conventional/generic digital signatures provide to computer networks when utilized. In other words, Applicant’s claims, arguments, and specification do not base the purported improvements drawn to the tamper-resistance / machine verifiability upon any technical details that are distinguishable from generic implementations of digital signatures, and, furthermore, do not appear to contemplate the purported improvements are due to anything other than a generic digital signature (e.g., signature of JWT) including more transaction-related data (e.g., the consent dates – see ¶32 of Applicant’s published specification referenced in Applicant arguments). The claims applying generic computer elements to an abstract idea so as to provide their generally afforded benefits to the otherwise abstract business process is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem under step 2A analysis. Instead, it is indicative of the claims merely using computers as tools for the judicial exception within a particular technological environment, i.e., a technical solution to an abstract business problem, which is insufficient grounds for patent eligibility under Alice – See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem, as the ordered combination of the additional elements do not indicate a solution that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant’s arguments drawn to “resource efficiency”5, “this reduces redundant consent exchange, message traffic, and processing latency across interconnected payment systems”6 are not persuasive, as Applicant’s independent claims fails to recite any limitations detailing how the additional elements themselves provide this improvement, beyond merely carrying out the abstract idea recited. When a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In other words, Examiner respectfully submits Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with claim scope and do not reflect the purported improvement – see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1): “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.”
Examiner notes Applicant, at best, provides specification support for an improvement drawn to a different technique of performing transactions requiring consent, but those improvements are rooted only in the abstract idea recited. I.e., this is not indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem – it is instead indicative of an improvement in the abstract idea itself. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not sufficient basis for integration of the judicial exception into a practical application under Alice/Mayo analysis – see MPEP § 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology …”. In other words, examiner respectfully maintains Applicant’s arguments amount to asserting that a technological solution to a technological problem is present in the instant claims because improvements to the abstract commercial and legal interactions are realized by the limitations of the claims7, of which does not comport with the Alice/Mayo test. As further support for examiner’s stance that Applicant’s position relies upon improvements in the abstract idea itself, and not any improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, examiner notes Applicant’s arguments drawn to ¶¶40, 47, 88-89 of the published specification are drawn to how the abstract process of consent for subsequent future transaction-related actions saves the consumer time from having to provide additional consents for future recurring transactions. These considerations are not at all concerned with computer functionality or a particular technological environment, they are concerned only with how to mitigate the requirement for more subsequent requests for consent, based on a prior consent obviating more future consents within a specified timeframe. (i.e., they are not indicative of a technological solution to a technological problem). See MPEP § 2106.04 II A 2: “…eligibility ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself’. … For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B”. Even if the claims reflect the purported improvement identified / asserted by the Applicant (e.g., additional consents are not needed per reusing a time-constrained consent), it is not indicative of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem), as the aforementioned abstract concept is indicative of an improvement in the abstract consent, relative to a simpler ad-hoc version of consent requirement needed for associated transactions. As indicated in SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 17-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting…Under the principles developed in interpreting §101, patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance”.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as in the 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application), as the focus of the claims is not an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea of consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date and personal information access that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claims do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract idea within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Accordingly, in view of the analysis performed with respect to steps 2A Prong I and 2A Prong II, the examiner respectfully maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A (Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea of consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date and personal information access).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2B Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2B and respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept for the following reasons:
The same reasons identified in the examiner’s step 2A Prong II analysis and subsequent supporting rationales (in the section immediately above) are generally applicable to step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and still indicate the additional elements as being merely applied and generally limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological solution to a technological problem. See MPEP § 2106.05: “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two.”
The well-understood, routine, and conventional rationale must pertain to involvement of the additional elements / components outside the abstract idea – not the abstract idea itself. see TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C. 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748, underline and bold emphasis added: “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. I.e., The details of the abstract idea indicated by Applicant in remarks are an insufficient basis for patent eligibility under the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” rationale – see also the following case law and MPEP cites:
Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151:
“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” (emphasis omitted).
BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
MPEP § 2106.05:
“…An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”.
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 17-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature [i.e., where it lies entirely within the realm of abstract ideas,] is ineligible for patenting…Under the principles developed in interpreting §101, patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”
It is for the reasons / considerations above that Applicant’s arguments drawn to “conventional approaches … rely on ad hoc consent interactions … [with] consumer…”, “…coordinated validation and grating steps based on temporal consent enforcement…” are not persuasive, as those arguments are drawn to details of the abstract idea recited and do not provide sufficient basis for why the additional elements themselves go beyond mere performance of well understood, routine, conventional activities. In other words, Applicant’s claims, arguments, and specification do not base the purported improvements upon any details that are distinguishable from generic implementations of payment networks / their constituent systems, and, furthermore, do not appear to contemplate the purported improvements are due to anything other than a generic cryptogram. The claims applying generic computer elements to an abstract idea so as to provide their generally afforded benefits to the otherwise abstract business process is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem under Alice/Mayo analysis. Instead, it is indicative of the claims merely using computers as tools for the judicial exception within a particular technological environment, i.e., a technical solution to an abstract business problem, which is insufficient grounds for patent eligibility under Alice – See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result” and Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole amount to nothing more than merely invoking computers as a tool to perform an abstract process of re-using consents within a time constraint (See MPEP §2106.05(f)), supplemented with techniques of gathering and analyzing information which are conventional to the technological environment the claims are merely limited to - see TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and MPEP §2106.05(a). In summary, the claims do not indicate any specific steps undertaken by the computer elements themselves that are beyond conventional functionality of payment networks being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea the computers are merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of payment networks and the technical field of cryptography. In view of the aforementioned, the claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem, as the ordered combination of the claimed elements do not indicate a solution that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
With respect to Applicant argument arguing that the present claims are not obvious in view of the prior art of record, and accordingly patent eligible, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of the argument and fails to find argument convincing. Case law makes clear that a lack of an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not confer patent eligibility to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”). See also MPEP § 2106.05 (“Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”);
Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of generic payment networks added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. The claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by merely invoking computers as tools, and do not provide any particular improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field8 (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h), 2106.04(d)(1)). Merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself, as indicated by BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); (Step 2B: No, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).
Hence, for the reasons listed above, as well as the reasons provided in 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept9 under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and maintains the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
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, 2, 4-8, 11-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test10. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are directed to either a system or method. Therefore, each of the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
Based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-20, and 22-24 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of consenting to recurring transactions requiring verification of personally identifying information. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
With respect Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis, claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-20, and 22-24 recite as a whole a method of organizing human activity because independent claims 1 and 15 each recite:
“1. A … method of completing a transaction, comprising:
generating, using a payment … [provider], consent request data associated with the transaction for a consumer,
wherein the transaction is associated with a first action and one or more subsequent actions for which consent from the consumer would otherwise be required,
and wherein the consent request data corresponds to a request for the consumer to provide a consent start date and a consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction and a consent start date and a consent end date for accessing consumer data associated with the transaction;
receiving, by the payment … [provider], consent data from the consumer,
wherein the consent data corresponds to the consent start date and the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction and the consent start date and the consent end date for accessing the consumer data;
… the consent data and a date and/or time when the consent data is received from the consumer, …
data corresponding to transaction information for the transaction, wherein the transaction information comprises the consent start date and the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction and the consent start date and the consent end date for accessing the consumer data;
… the data corresponding to the transaction information, … the date and/or the time when the consent data is received from the consumer;
receiving, at a payment … [provider], first authorisation request data from a merchant …, wherein the first authorisation request data comprises:
…
data corresponding to a request for authorisation to complete the first action of the transaction on a first specified date; and a request to access the consumer data on a second specified date;
verifying, by the payment … [provider] …, the first authorisation request data if the first specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date for the transaction and the same as or earlier than the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction;
granting, by the payment … [provider], access to the consumer data if the second specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date for accessing the consumer data and the same as or earlier than the consent end date for accessing the consumer data;
receiving, at the payment … [provider], first authorisation data from an issuer … after verifying the first authorisation request data, wherein the first authorisation data corresponds to an authorisation to complete the first action of the transaction and includes the consumer data;
transmitting, by the payment … [provider], the first authorisation data to the merchant …; and
performing, by the merchant …, the first action in response to receiving the first authorisation data.”
“15. … completing a computer implemented transaction, …:
a payment … configured to:
generate consent request data associated with the transaction for a consumer,
wherein the transaction is associated with a first action and one or more subsequent actions for which consent from the consumer would otherwise be required,
and wherein the consent request data corresponds to a request for the consumer to provide a consent start date and a consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction and a consent start date and a consent end date for accessing consumer data associated with the transaction;
receive consent data from the consumer,
wherein the consent data corresponds to the consent start date and the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction and the consent start date and the consent end date for accessing the consumer data;
… the consent data and a date and/or a time when the consent data is received from the consumer, …
data corresponding to transaction information for the transaction,
wherein the transaction information comprises the consent start date and the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction and the consent start date and the consent end date for accessing the consumer data;
… the data corresponding to the transaction information,
... the date and/or the time when the consent data is received from the consumer;
…
receive first authorisation request data from a merchant …, wherein the first authorisation request data comprises:
…
data corresponding to a request for authorisation to complete the first action of the transaction on a first specified date;
a request to access the consumer data on a second specified date;
verify, … the first authorisation request data if the first specified date is after the consent start date for the transaction and before the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction;
granting, … access to the consumer data if the second specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date for accessing the consumer data and the same as or earlier than the consent end date for accessing the consumer data;
receive first authorisation data from an issuer system after verifying the first authorisation request data,
wherein the first authorisation data corresponds to an authorisation to complete the first action of the transaction and includes the consumer data;
transmitting, …, the first authorisation data to the merchant …;
performing, by the … system, the first action in response to receiving the first authorisation data;
receiving, …, second authorisation request data from the merchant …,
wherein the second authorisation request data comprises data corresponding to a request for authorisation to complete the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction on a second specified date;
verifying, …, the second authorisation request data if the second specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date for the transaction and the same as or earlier than the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction;
receiving, …, second authorisation data from the issuer … after verifying the second authorisation request data, wherein the second authorisation data corresponds to an authorisation to complete the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction;
transmitting, …, the second authorisation data to the merchant …; and
performing, by the merchant …, the one or more subsequent actions in response to receiving the second authorisation data.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, these are commercial and legal interactions of legal agreements in the form of consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date and personal information access. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1 and 15 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test:
The additional elements “…computer implemented…”, “…payment system…”, “generating a cryptogram based on …data and a date and/or time …”, “…wherein the cryptogram comprises: data … and … date[s]… and a digital signature generated…using a cryptographic key and … data …,”, “…payment network…”, “…[merchant] system…”, “…wherein the first authorisation request data comprises: the cryptogram… ”, “… [verifying] by the payment network based on the cryptogram…”, and “…[issuer] system…” of claim 1, and the additional elements “…a system for …”, “…computer implemented…”, “…the system comprising: … a payment system configured to: … a payment network configured to…”, “…“generating a cryptogram based on …data and a date and/or time …”, “…wherein the cryptogram comprises: data … and … date[s]… and a digital signature generated…using a cryptographic key and … data …,”, “…[merchant] system…”, “…wherein the first authorisation request data comprises: the cryptogram… ”, “… [verifying] by the payment network based on the cryptogram…”, and “…[issuer] system…” of claim 15 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date, and personal information access – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)).
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)).
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date, and personal information access, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1 and 15 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B, claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 15, each when viewed as a whole, do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as their elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract concept of consenting to commercial financial transaction agreements predicated upon a start date, end date, and personal information access within a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological details that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claims 1 and 15 utilize a payment system and payment network in connection with an issuer system and merchant system, the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited, as even the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Worded differently, the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, as nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of generic payment network participants being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of payment networks and the technical field of cryptography. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Hence, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 15 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims have been given the full analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claim 2, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…the transaction information further comprises a payment amount associated with the transaction;”. The additional element, “…wherein the payment system comprises a portable communications device or a point-of-sale device; …” is optional, and does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 16, they do not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional elements, “…wherein the cryptogram forms part of authentication data communicated using or more authentication fields in a 3D-Secure protocol;”, and “…the cryptographic key comprises a symmetric key or a private key of a public-private key pair; or combinations thereof;” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 4 and 16 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 5, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…a transaction authorisation message or a financial request message”. The additional element, “…wherein the cryptogram forms part of a … message or a … request…;”, does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 6, it does not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional elements, “…wherein generating the cryptogram comprises: … generating the cryptogram using a digital wallet service; and transmitting, using the digital wallet service, the cryptogram to the merchant system”, do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 7, it does not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional elements, “…wherein generating the cryptogram comprises: … generating the cryptogram using the payment system; and transmitting, using the digital wallet service, the cryptogram to the merchant system”, do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 8, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…wherein verifying, by the payment … [provider]…, the first authorisation request data comprises: transmitting … to a … provider, wherein the … provider is configured to verify …receiving the data corresponding to the transaction information … based on the data corresponding to the transaction information, determining if the first specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date and the same as or earlier than the consent end date; and verifying the first authorisation request based on the determination;”. The additional elements “…transmitting the cryptogram to a token service provider, wherein the token service provider is configured to verify the cryptogram based on the digital signature”, and “…of the cryptogram…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 11, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…wherein verifying, by the payment … [provider], the first authorisation request data comprises: verifying … based on the verification … obtaining the data corresponding to the transaction information…determining if the first specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date and the same as or earlier than the consent end date; and verifying the first authorisation request based on the determination”. The additional elements “…based on the digital signature…”, “…of the cryptogram…”, and “…from the cryptogram…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 12, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…wherein receiving, at a payment… [provider], the first authorisation data from the issuer…after verifying the first authorisation request data comprises: transmitting the first authorisation request data to the issuer…; and receiving the first authorisation data from the issuer in response to the transmitted first authorisation request data.”. The additional elements “…payment network” and “…issuer system…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 13, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…wherein the transaction comprises an exchange of data, wherein the exchange of data comprises: an exchange of payment data associated with the consumer; or an exchange of personal data relating to the consumer.”. Claim 13 does not include any additional elements and does not indicate the previous additional elements of the parent claims integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 14, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…wherein the transaction is initiated by a merchant associated with the merchant ….”. The additional element “…merchant system…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 17, it does not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional element, “…wherein the payment system comprises a portable communications device or a point-of-sale device;” does no more than merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 17 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 18, it does not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional element, “…further comprising a digital wallet in communication with the merchant system” does no more than merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 19, it does not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional element, “…further comprising a token service provider.” does no more than merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 20, it does not recite any further abstract idea at step 2A Prong I. However, the additional elements, “…further comprising a token service provider.”, does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 20 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 22, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…receiving, at the payment network, second authorisation request data from the merchant…, wherein the second authorisation request data comprises data corresponding to a request for authorization to complete the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction on a second specified date; verifying, by the payment… [provider] …. the second authorisation request data if the second specified date is the same as or later than the consent start date for the transaction and the same as or earlier than the consent end date for completion of the first action and the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction; receiving, at the payment … [provider], second authorisation data from the issuer …after verifying the second authorisation request data, wherein the second authorisation data corresponds to an authorisation to complete the one or more subsequent actions of the transaction; transmitting, by the payment … [provider], the second authorisation data to the merchant …; and performing, by the merchant …, the one or more subsequent actions in response to receiving the second authorisation data ”. The additional elements “…payment system”, “…payment network”, “verifying, by the payment network based on the cryptogram”, “…issuer system…”, and “…merchant system…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, claim 22 does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 22 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 23, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…wherein the first action and the one or more subsequent actions includes at least one of the following: a payment transaction, and exchange of data, and an update to terms and conditions or use or a service agreement [for a transaction]11”. Claim 23 does not include any additional elements and does not indicate the previous additional elements of the parent claim integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 23 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 24, it recites further details of the abstract concept per reciting limitations “…modifying, by the merchant…, one or more data fields of a transaction authorisation message or a financial request message to also include the consent data when initiating the transaction associated with the first action and the one or more subsequent actions ….”. The additional element “…merchant system…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, claims 24 does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 24 is also not patent eligible.
Closest Prior Art of Record
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-20, and 22-24 overcome 35 U.S.C. 102/103 for the following reasons:
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter when viewed either as a whole, or an ordered combination, and does not teach the ordered combination of claim limitations, short of hindsight bias.
The closest prior art of record includes:
The following prior art, drawn to recurring payment details:
WIPO document WO-2021119619-A1 (Poon), as indicated on pages 35 – 48 of the 2/11/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
United States Patent Application Publication US-20190392443-A1 (Pipersaniya), as indicated on pages 48 – 52 of the 2/11/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
The following prior art, drawn to accessing consumer data for merchant / transaction use:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20130159154 A1 (Purves). At least ¶¶40, 41, 83, 94, 95 are relevant. The aforementioned paragraphs include disclosure of recurring / periodic / subscription transactions, where user consent may be required for future transactions, and discloses merchant’s access to consumer PII is limited and based on enforcement of the terms consented to by consumer. Fig. 7b shows exemplary data that may be shared via the systems / methods.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160078428 A1 (Moser). At least ¶¶11, 36-38, 41, 42, 45, 50, 52, 60, and claims 2 and 7 are relevant. The aforementioned paragraphs include disclosure of providing merchant access to user wallet data in a persistent manner, where cardholder consent is initially required. Unlike Purves, Moser does not appear to expressly contemplate recurring transactions used with the consent access mechanism.
The following prior art, pertinent for disclosing aspects of cryptograms (JSON web tokens):
Non-Patent Literature, “EMV 3-D Secure Protocol and Core Functions Specification” (3D-S), disclosing that JSON web Tokens (JWTs) are used in EMV standards – see at least §§5.7.1, 6.2.3.2 discloses the payment environment generate cryptographic digital signatures (i.e., JWS’s / JSON Web Signatures) for requests, where Examiner notes JWTs comprising digital signatures are generally understood to constitute a cryptogram. Given the nature of the prior art reference being a specification for (3D-S) transaction standards, Examiner respectfully submits it is evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that any disclosure 3D-S provides is generally understood to be conventional in the relevant technological environment, per being a specification of the 3D-S standard. Examiner takes the stance it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given Pipersaniya and 3D-S, that the token of Pipersaniya could include a digital signature for the time / date, but notes that the ordered combination of Poon in view of Pipersaniya and 3D-S may (arguably) not a prima facie obviousness rationale to combine, at least because Poon seemingly implies the signature and token are distinct data elements.
United States Patent Publication No. US 11509478 B2 (Mohassel), disclosing that JWTs (i.e., cryptograms, like those of 3D-S, above), are known to comprise a signature section, of which may typically be signed with a symmetric or asymmetric key (See Fig. 2 in further view of at least Col 6, lines 49-54, emphasis added: “FIG. 2 illustrates the example contents of a typical authentication token used in these existing token-based authentication schemes, which utilize a plain password-based token generation protocol for generating authentication tokens. In particular, it illustrates the contents of a sample JSONWeb Token that uses hash message authentication code (HMAC)”). Mohassel also discloses the JWTs comprise a timestamp in the body (iat – see Fig. 2), of which is understood to be part of the digital signature given the iat is part of the body of the JWT. Examiner notes that while Mohassel does not explicitly state the payload (e.g., the data including the iat key / value) is part of the data used to generate the signature, but Examiner further notes one of ordinary skill in the art with a basic understanding of how JWTs generally work would realize Mohassel silently / implicitly teaches the typical authentication token of Fig. 2 (shown above) “is further generated by digitally signing the date and/or the time …”12.
The following prior art, relevant for issues pertaining to the claimed verification steps performed:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20110251962 A1 (Hruska), of a similar field of endeavor as Applicant and Poon, suggests: verifying … if the specified date is the same as or later than [a] start date and the same as or earlier than [an] end date; ¶68 of Hruska: “[0068] Step 3: Reject transaction if date-time is out of range” - See also ¶75 of Hruska disclosing the same subject matter. Examiner notes that a range corresponding to dates inherently has a “start date” and an “end date”, per plain meaning of “range”.
In summary, while all of the individual elements of the claimed invention were disclosed by prior art (mostly by Poon, Pipersaniya, and Purves references), the Examiner failed to find a prima facie obviousness rationale for the ordered combination of the claimed invention (as per the independent claims), short of hindsight bias. Based on the prior art of record found during examination, the ordered combination of elements claimed by Applicant could only be obvious by using Applicant’s specification as a roadmap to find all the required components – i.e., impermissible hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160078428 A1 (Moser). At least ¶¶11, 36-38, 41, 42, 45, 50, 52, 60, and claims 2 and 7 are relevant. The aforementioned paragraphs include disclosure of providing merchant access to user wallet data in a persistent manner, where cardholder consent is initially required. Unlike Purves, Moser does not appear to expressly contemplate recurring transactions used with the consent access mechanism.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20200226600 A1 (Cao). Cao discloses methods for securely verifying a subset of personally identifiable information for thing such as age verification for alcohol purchases (title, ¶2 within Background section). Cao also contemplates a vendor a merchant may need to verify that the individual’s identity is correct, while the individual still not wanting to show more information than necessary, such as their address (¶3). ¶20 discloses their system provides methods for securely verifying a subset of PII, so as to allow a financial institution or other organization storing PII to provide an answer to a query from a vendor / merchant to verify a subset of PII of an individual, while protecting the individual’s privacy (¶20). Examiner notes this is the same example of PII referred to in Applicant’s background.
The following prior art, including disclosure of personal user information related to installments:
US 11250407 B2 (Chen ‘407). Abstract, Col 2, lines 16-18, and Col 2, lines 54-59 are relevant.
US 20170270604 A1 (Abela). At least Abstract and ¶7 are relevant.
The following prior art drawn to installment payments, most of which provide disclosure corresponding to a payment environment similar to Applicant’s:
Non-Patent Literature, “Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules” (VCR), disclosing, in table 5-17, installment payment requirements for merchants, including Cardholder consent and disclosure, of which explicitly includes the terms of payments, including “the dates”.
PNG
media_image1.png
882
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Non-Patent Literature, “Transaction Processing Rules” (TPR), from Mastercard (Applicant), from 2015, disclosing cardholders specifying an “installment payment schedule” on page 79.
United States Application Publication No. US-20090210339-A1 (Bhagwat), similarly disclosing configuration of installments as Applicant and Poon, suggests that monthly installments, such as the ones of Poon, can be described via a start date and … end date. See ¶¶22, 27-30 of Bhagwat:
¶22: The installments can be paid on one or more predetermined date(s) on one or more of a […] monthly basis, […] Further, a plurality of installments are payable at one or more predetermined date(s) on the basis of the period frequency, […] For example, the use[r] can schedule an incrementing installment for a particular period by way of selecting a start date and an end date and he can schedule a decrementing installment for a particular period by selecting a start date and an end date.
¶27-30: For example, when a user selects an option of incrementing/decrementing installments, the user is presented with a window, where he/she can enter/select the options such as incrementing/decrementing payment type, start date(s) and end date(s) corresponding to incrementing and decrementing installments, […].
Even though Bhagwat describes a readily substitutable way to describe a more specific timeframe (e.g., 6 months (broad), relative to say, January 1st, 2024 – June 1st, 2024 (specific)), the Examiner failed to see any rationale that would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to modify the plan identifier of Poon (above) to be as granular as to list each individual date. Conversely, such a combination would seemingly have an undesirable effect of needlessly updating the plan identifiers on a more regular basis.
Non-Patent Literature, “Verified by Visa – Acquirer and Merchant Implementation Guide” (VBV), disclosing installment transactions in §5.9. §5.9 discloses that information to realize installment transactions must have a specified end date.
United States Patent Publication No. US 11687903 B2 (Pinto), disclosing: “At step 806, after receiving the selection of the installment plan, the access device can display installment plan details, such as a payment schedule as well as terms and conditions. In some embodiments, the user can review the payment schedule and can accept terms and conditions. The access device can transmit a message to a network computer. The message can include the user's acceptance of the installment plan details. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, the user can be presented with a purchase total, a monthly payment total, a number of months, an interest rate, terms and conditions, a payment schedule
PNG
media_image2.png
662
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
includes dates and/or payment amounts, an accept button, and/or a cancel button”.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160321634 A1 (George), disclosing POS enabled installments with eligibility check requirements (title, abstract).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170323280 A1 (DeSilva), disclosing a system for facilitating installment transactions (title, abstract).
United States Patent Application Publication No. (Chen ‘746), drawn to user-defined installments (title). At least ¶¶20, 26, 64, 76 of Chen ‘746 discloses encryption of (the user-defined) installment data.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20200074434 A1 (Chen ‘434), disclosing a method for installment payment options for a payment transaction (abstract). ¶4 discloses modified merchant systems for displaying customer-selectable options for time periods for installment payments. See also ¶2.
Foreign Patent Document KR-20090077747-A (Kim), provided as translated document from google patents, disclosing, on page 12/19 of translation: “checking the validity of the long-term interest-free installment payment processing request information may include: when the long-term interest-free installment payment processing request information is electronically signed or encrypted through a security module provided in the terminal […] decoding the long-term interest-free installment payment processing request information or decoding the long-term interest-free installment payment processing request information.” Furthermore, page 13/19 of translation discloses that the installment payment information may include: “installment payment date information”. Page 17/19 discloses: “The installment application information may include at least one or more installment month information, payment amount information, installment payment date information, and automatic transfer account information for requesting an installment payment for the product while the customer purchases a predetermined product”.
The following prior art, drawn to UCAF13:
Non-Patent Literature, “Mastercard Secure Code” (MCSC), disclosing UCAF (Universal Cardholder Authentication Field), the field as disclosed in Applicant’s Specification. MCSC discloses that it is a field used to transport authentication values (AAVs), of which Examiner understands the AAVs as a type of cryptogram, generally. MCSC discloses the UCAF is customizable (“tailored to”) based on the needs of different authentication approaches, generally.
The following prior art, drawn to payment or token standards that involve cryptograms or digital signatures / timestamps:
Non-Patent Literature, “Book 2” (EMVCo). As an initial matter, Examiner notes EMVCo is consortium of companies (e.g., Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) charged with maintaining standards for transaction environments. EMVCo generally discloses payment standards that Examiner respectfully submits is conventional to the area of transaction processing networks - e.g., to Visa, Mastercard, etc. - see §§8.1 – 8.1.2 disclosing cryptogram generation. Examiners notes these fields are similar to ones displayed in table of Applicant Specification.
Non-Patent Literature, “EMV 3-D Secure Protocol and Core Functions Specification” (3D-S), dated 2017, disclosing, in section 2 (page 27/255), an overview of their payment standards for EMV 3-D Secure transactions. As an initial matter, Examiner notes EMVCo is consortium of companies (e.g., Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) charged with maintaining standards for transaction environments. 3D-S discloses their standard includes a payment system that provides request data (e.g., see 3DS Requestor Environment, including 3DS Client (e.g., payment system) – see Figure 2.1. Fig. 2.1 also discloses an issuer system, payment network,). §2.1.1.1 discloses the 3DS Requestor “the 3DS Requestor typically represents the existing Merchant web server for online shopping. The 3DS Requestor has a relationship with the 3DS Client either via the 3DS Requestor App, or the 3DS Method/Browser on the Consumer Device”. Furthermore, at least §§5.7.1, 6.2.3.2 discloses the payment environment generate cryptographic digital signatures (i.e., JWS’s / JSON Web Signatures) for requests, where Examiner notes JWTs comprising digital signatures are generally understood to constitute a cryptogram. Given the nature of the prior art reference being a specification for standards, Examiner respectfully submits it is evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that any disclosure 3D-S provides is generally understood to be conventional in the relevant technological environment, per being defining standards.
Non-Patent Literature, “Digital Signature Service Core Protocols, Elements, and Bindings Version 2.0” (OASIS), disclosing a digital signature standard by OASIS group. At least §5.3 – General Processing (on page 122 of 149) discloses augmentation of digital signatures with timestamps.
Non-Patent Literature, “JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens” (Bertocci), disclosing a specification for issuing access tokens in JWT format. At least Page 18 of 21 of Bertocci indicates that the iat claim/value in the JWT is required for the authorization protocol described therein. Furthermore, at least Abstract is relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20150089232 A1 (Belton), disclosing digital signatures typically have a start and expiration date (¶38).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20100312709 A1 (Maddocks), disclosing typical fields of a cryptogram include transaction date / time (¶43).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20080288409 A1 (Yoshioka) disclosing: “[…] security element techniques that are most commonly used include digital signature and time stamp” (¶4).
Non-Patent Literature, “RFC 3161” (Adams), disclosing, in Appendix A, “One of the major uses of time-stamping is to time-stamp a digital signature to prove that the digital signature was created before a given time.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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 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 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter claimed.
2 Pages 11-14 of Remarks.
3 Pages 17 of Remarks.
4 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
5 Page 17 of Remarks.
6 Page 17 of Remarks
7 See pages 15-16 of Remarks referring to ¶¶40, 47, 88-89 of Applicant specification.
8 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
9 I.e., “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
10 See MPEP § 2106 I.
11 See parent claim limitations: “…actions…of the transaction…”
12 For a more detailed explanation of why Mohassel silently discloses or otherwise implicitly suggests a digital signature corresponding to the JWT to one of ordinary skill in the art, see pages 12-17 of this office action within “Addressing Applicant’s Arguments Drawn to 35 U.S.C. §101 – Step 2A Prong II” section, further above, with primary focus on Mohassel’s, Jones’, and jones-2’s disclosures referenced therein.
13 A term specifically mentioned in Applicant’s Specification.