DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed with an RCE on December 29, 2025.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claims have overcome the claim objections, and the claim objections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112:
The amended claims have overcome the 112 rejection, and the 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant contends that the claims as amended herein are patent eligible under Section 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The paragraphs [0002]-[0004] of the publication, presented by the applicant, describe the inconvenience of having multiple prepaid cards and an improvement of linking them together with an account. The examiner would like to point out that linking multiple payment instruments/accounts by one card/account/wallet has been presented/implemented for some time. The Apple wallet and the Google wallet, for instance, allow multiple payment cards to be added, including gift cards in the wallet, and these added cards with available funds amounts can be accessed and used to make a payment. Using a token PAN to replace a real account number in a transaction is a common procedure for protecting the real account number. Additionally, linking multiple cards together with a token merely improves the recited abstract idea itself, not the functioning of a computer, technology, or a technical field.
One of improvements claimed by paragraphs [0027] and [0029] of the publication is reducing network load by reducing the number of authorization messages and increasing the speed of the authorization process by reducing the total number of messages required. The examiner would like to point out that the authorization request still needs to be sent to each of the banks associated with the selected payment instruments/accounts by a computing system, that each bank needs to send an authorization response back to the computing system in order to inform the authorizing of the transaction, and that an additional authorization request needs to be sent to a holding account bank. Sending authorization request to each of the banks associated with the payment instruments is a transaction process similar to the conventional transaction process. Each of the banks associated with the selected payment instruments plus the holding account bank must authorize the transaction regardless of the authorization requests being sent by a merchant system or by any other entities, and this indicates that each of the banks associated with the payment instruments and the holding account bank have to send a message back to the computing system to inform the authorizing of the transaction. Therefore, the number of authorization messages is not reduced. The speed of the authorization process may not be reduced as well because the system needs to send an additional authorization request to the holding account bank after the first bank and the second bank decide to authorize the transaction. This could make the speed of the authorization process even slower. The other improvements claimed by paragraphs [0027] and [0029], such as ability to apply fraud detection services to prepaid cards, thereby preventing fraudulent transactions from successfully proceeding, are common methods/procedures to mitigate risks, which is part of the abstract idea within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity." The improvements claimed by the presented paragraph [0078], such as increasing security of prepaid card funds via the token PAN, merely improve the recited abstract idea itself, not the functioning of a computer, technology, or a technical field. Paragraph [0083], as presented by the applicant, discloses: “An algorithm comprising predefined rules may be used at a network level to determine the optimal use of the cards available and their available balances to complete the transaction, as discussed in more detail below. In some embodiments, the optimal use of the cards determined by the algorithm comprises using the full available balance on as many of the prepaid cards as possible.” The examiner would like to point out that an algorithm, by definition, is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations, especially by a computer. As disclosed by the paragraph [0083], the algorithm comprising predefined rules may be used to determine the optimal use of the cards available. The cited algorithm is an additional element that is used to determine the optimal use of available cards based on the predefined rules. This additional element is merely used as a tool to perform the determining of the optimal use of available cards. Utilizing the predefined rules to determine the optimal use of available cards is only a business approach. Therefore, this additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field or offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the series of steps recited in the amended claim 1 describe generating a token PAN to link with payment cards and processing a payment transaction based on information associated with the token and the payment cards. In particular, the amended claim 1 recites the steps of receiving account information of payment cards, generating a token, linking the token to the payment card accounts, receiving transaction data from a merchant, validating the transaction data, determining an optimal payment structure for the transaction, sending authentication messages to the banks for the transaction, and transmitting a message to a merchant bank to complete the transaction, which could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risks, and/or commercial interactions, such as a sales activity at a merchant, one of the sub-groupings under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the identified additional elements of a computing system including at least one processor and a memory device, a digital wallet, back ends associated with payment cards, and an algorithm in the amended claim 1 perform the steps of receiving account information of payment cards, generating a token, linking the token to the payment card accounts, receiving transaction data from a merchant, validating the transaction data, determining an optimal payment structure for the transaction, sending authentication messages to the banks for the transaction, and transmitting a message to a merchant bank to complete the transaction. The computer system including at least one processor and a memory device is a regular computer system for performing the cited abstract idea. A digital wallet is an application stored in a computer device (see paragraph [0020] of the publication), as other regular digital wallets. The back ends associated with payment cards are merely the entities associated with the payment cards. An algorithm, by definition, is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations, especially by a computer. As disclosed by the paragraph [0083], the algorithm comprising predefined rules may be used to determine the optimal use of the cards available. It is an additional element that is used to determine the optimal use of available cards based on the predefined rules. These additional elements in these steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing the generic computer functions for generating a token PAN to link with payment cards and processing a transaction based on information associated with the token and the payment cards) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As discussed above by the examiner, all claim limitations are evaluated in view of the specification. The claimed improvements by the applicant or by the specification merely improve the recited abstract idea itself, not the functioning of a computer, technology, or a technical field. Additionally, the examiner would like to point out that the token domain restriction controls merely recite business rules, which is part of the abstract idea within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity." Validating a transaction based on metadata, such as device data, an IP address, and a shipping address, is a common procedure for processing the transaction. The prepaid card, such as a gift card, can have the fraud protection if needed. How to implement the fraud protection and what levels of the fraud protection should be implemented are based on business rules/requirements. Additionally, linking multiple payment instruments/accounts by one card/account/wallet has been presented/implemented for some time. Using a token PAN to replace a real account number in a transaction is a common procedure for protecting the real account number. Verifying a transaction based on the information associated with the transaction and the user is a regular process for authorizing the transaction. Risk-based authentication (RBA) and risk-based decisioning (RBD) are well established methods for performing authentication and making decisions based on risks. Utilizing predefined rules to determine the optimal use of available cards is only a business approach. The identified additional elements of a computing system including at least one processor and a memory device, a digital wallet, back ends associated with the payment card, and an algorithm merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Step B, the applicant argues: “Due at least to the single holding account associated with the token PAN and backend technical aspects regarding combining the funds, the transaction is processed as a single transaction at the merchant level, improving both the speed of processing of the transaction and the network load associated with the processing of the transaction. Accordingly, the present claims should be considered significantly more than any abstract idea.” The applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. As the examiner has pointed out, linking multiple payment instruments/accounts by one card/account/wallet has been presented/implemented for some time. The customer only needs to provide the identification information associated with the one card/account/wallet at a merchant, and the customer can select one or more payment instruments/amounts associated with the one card/account/wallet for a transaction. The network load is not reduced because each of the selected payment instruments must be authorized by the bank/issuer regardless of the authorization request being sent by a merchant system or by any other entities. This is a transaction process similar to the conventional transaction process. Additionally, an additional authorization request needs to be sent to a holding account bank. The speed of the authorization process may not be reduced because the system needs to send an additional authorization request to the holding account bank after the first bank and the second bank decide to authorize the transaction. This could make the speed of the authorization process even slower. A token is a way of representing the identification of the card/account/wallet. Utilizing predefined rules to determine the optimal use of available cards is only a business approach. An algorithm, by definition, is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations, especially by a computer. As disclosed by the paragraph [0083], the algorithm comprising predefined rules may be used to determine the optimal use of the cards available. It is an additional element that is used to determine the optimal use of available cards based on the predefined rules. This additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Therefore, the additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea. Under Step 2B, as discussed above, the identified additional elements of a computing system including at least one processor and a memory device, a digital wallet, back ends associated with the payment cards, and an algorithm in the amended claim 1 perform the steps of receiving account information of payment cards, generating a token, linking the token to the payment card accounts, receiving transaction data from a merchant, validating the transaction data, determining an optimal payment structure for the transaction, sending authentication messages to the banks for the transaction, and transmitting a message to a merchant bank to complete the transaction. These additional elements in these steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely recites the concept of generating a token PAN to link with payment cards and processing a transaction based on information associated with the token and the payment cards. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a computing system, and claims 15-20 are directed to at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, claims 1-20 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to generating a token PAN to link with payment cards and processing a transaction based on information associated with the token and the payment cards. In particular, the claim recites the steps of receiving account information of payment cards, generating a token, linking the token to the payment card accounts, receiving transaction data from a merchant, validating the transaction data, determining an optimal payment structure for the transaction, sending authentication messages to the banks for the transaction, and transmitting a message to a merchant bank to complete the transaction, which could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions, one of the sub-groupings under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] computer-implemented method for linking multiple data records to a single tokenized identifier, the computer-implemented method implemented using a computing system including at least one processor and a memory device in communication with the at least one processor, the computer-implemented method comprising operations performed by the at least one processor of: receiving a first data record associated with a first account into a digital wallet and a second data record associated with a second account into the digital wallet, wherein the first account is associated with a prepaid card having prepaid funds associated therewith and the second account is associated with a second card having available funds associated therewith; generating a token primary account number (PAN) and linking the token PAN to (i) the first data record, (ii) a back end associated with the prepaid card, (iii) the second data record, and (iv) a back end associated with the second card, wherein the token PAN is configured for use via a single holding account associated with the token PAN and in association with the digital wallet to provide access to a combined amount of funds associated with the digital wallet, the combined amount of funds including the prepaid funds of the prepaid card and the available funds of the second card; in response to receiving transaction data from a merchant for a transaction initiated with the merchant using the digital wallet that exceeds the prepaid funds of the prepaid card: evaluating the transaction data against token domain restriction controls associated with the token PAN, the token domain restriction controls being stored within the memory device; based on a determination that the transaction data does not violate the token domain restriction controls, evaluating digital wallet metadata associated with the transaction data against metadata stored in the memory device for the token PAN; and based on a determination that the digital wallet metadata associated with the transaction data is consistent with the metadata stored in the memory device for the token PAN, determining an optimal payment structure by applying an algorithm stored within the memory device to the combined amount of funds, wherein the optimal payment structure as determined in association with the algorithm includes a first portion of the combined amount of funds, the first portion of the combined amount of funds including (i) all of the prepaid funds of the prepaid card and (ii) a portion of the available funds of the second card that is equal to an amount of the transaction less all of the prepaid funds, wherein the optimal payment structure further includes applying all of the prepaid funds to the transaction before the portion of the available funds of the second card is applied to the transaction; sending, via the back end associated with the prepaid card, a first authorization request to a first bank associated with the first account and, via the back end associated with the second card, a second authorization request to a second bank associated with the second account based on the optimal payment structure such that relative to the first bank and the second bank, the transaction is a first transaction associated with the first account and a second transaction associated with the second account; based on the first bank authorizing the first transaction and the second bank authorizing the second transaction, transmitting a third authorization request to a holding account bank associated with the hold account; and in response to authorization of the transaction from the holding account bank, transmitting an electronic message to a merchant bank associated with the merchant to complete the transaction via satisfaction of the transaction amount with the first portion of the combined amount of funds, such that relative to the merchant bank, the transaction is a single transaction due to the single holding account associated with the toke PAN.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of claim 1 — a computing system including at least one processor and a memory device, a digital wallet, back ends associated with payment cards, and an algorithm — perform the steps of receiving account information of payment cards, generating a token, linking the token with payment card accounts, receiving transaction data, validating the transaction data, determining an optimal payment structure for the transaction, sending authentication messages to the banks for the transaction, and transmitting a message to a merchant bank to complete the transaction. The computer system including at least one processor and a memory device is a regular computer system for performing the cited abstract idea. A digital wallet is an application stored in a computer device (see paragraph [0020] of the publication), as other regular digital wallets. The back ends associated with payment cards are merely the entities associated with the payment cards. An algorithm, by definition, is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations, especially by a computer. As disclosed by the paragraph [0083], the algorithm comprising predefined rules may be used to determine the optimal use of the cards available. It is an additional element that is used to determine the optimal use of available cards based on the predefined rules. The additional elements in these steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing the generic computer functions for generating a token PAN to link with payment cards and processing a transaction based on information associated with the token and the payment cards) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements above merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements — a computing system including at least one processor and a memory device, a digital wallet, back ends associated with the payment cards, and an algorithm — amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the computer system including at least one processor and a memory device is a regular computer system for performing the cited abstract idea. A digital wallet is an application stored in a computer device (see paragraph [0020] of the publication), as other regular digital wallets. The back ends associated with payment cards are merely the entities associated with the payment cards. An algorithm, by definition, is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations, especially by a computer. As disclosed by the paragraph [0083], the algorithm comprising predefined rules may be used to determine the optimal use of the cards available. It is an additional element that is used to determine the optimal use of available cards based on the predefined rules. As discussed above, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements disclosed in the claim merely recites the concept of generating a token PAN to link with payment cards and processing a transaction based on information associated with the token and the payment cards. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The cited new additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 also have been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite wherein the first data record further includes first predefined rules associated with the first account and in response to the initiation of the transaction, retrieving the first predefined rules to determine the first account may be used to perform the transaction, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. No new additional elements are identified.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite saving the optional payment structure as a data record, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of the memory device and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite additional elements of wherein the second card is a general-purpose payment card and the second account is associated with a general-purpose payment card. The additional elements merely describe the characteristics of the second card and the second account, which are information included in the abstract idea. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements merely describe the information included in the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite in response to the initiation of the transaction, determining a likelihood of fraud, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of risk-based authentication (RBA) and risk-based decisioning (RBD) are well established methods for performing authentication and making decisions based on risks. The RBA and RBD are cited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using these computer components. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea using computer components.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite placing token domain restriction controls on the token PAN such that any attempt to use the prepaid card other than via the token PAN will result in data representing the prepaid funds not being transferred from the first bank, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of wherein the token domain restriction controls are unique to the token PAN merely describes the characteristics of the token domain restriction controls included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional element merely describes the information included in the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 14 recite in response to a user input, deactivating the first account or second account, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. No new additional elements are identified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if they are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over prior art:
Claim 1 recites a method for linking multiple data records to a single tokenized identifier. After a first data record associated with a first account and a second data record associated with a second account are received, a token primary account number (PAN) is generated. The first account is associated with a prepaid card having prepaid funds, and the second account is associated with a second card having available funds. The token PAN is linked to the first data record, a back end associated with the prepaid card, the second data record, and a back end associated with the second card. The token PAN is used via a single holding account associated with the token PAN and in association with a digital wallet to provide access to a combined amount of funds associated with the digital wallet, the combined amount of funds including the prepaid funds of the prepaid card and the available funds of the second card. After a transaction is received, the transaction data is evaluated against token domain restriction controls associated with the token PAN. Additionally, digital wallet metadata associated with the transaction data is evaluated against metadata stored in the memory device for the token PAN. An optimal payment structure is determined by applying an algorithm to the combined amount. The optimal payment structure includes applying all of the prepaid funds to the transaction before the portion of the available funds of the second card is applied to the transaction. The authorization requests are sent to the first bank and a second bank based on the optimal payment structure. A third authorization request is transmitted to a holding account bank based on the authorization from the first bank and the second bank. A message is transmitted to a merchant bank to complete the transaction in response to authorization of the transaction from the holding account bank.
The closest prior art of record is as follows:
Barbour et al. (US 20090057396 A1) discloses a system and a method for enabling a consumer to use a single token (such as a magnetic stripe card or a smart chip) linked to a plurality of financial accounts belonging to the consumer to complete a purchase or a financial transaction. The information stored in the token may be used to retrieve from a central server information related to the various financial accounts (such as credit accounts, savings/checking accounts, money market accounts, or home equity accounts) belonging to the consumer. After a transaction request along with the token information is received, a central server validates the information request and the token details by accessing one or more internal or external databases. The specific amounts from several accounts held by the account holder are selected for a transaction based on the predefined rules. An account holder can have a single master account comprising or associated with a plurality of accounts that may include savings account, checking account, one or more debit and credit cards.
Petersen et al. (US 20160132876 A1) discloses associating financial accounts with a wallet account of a user. The user can associate the user's wallet account with multiple debit/credit cards, stored value cards, prepaid cards, re-loadable transaction cards, exchange cards, loyalty cards or other store rewards cards, value added service accounts, peer-to-peer transaction accounts, bank accounts and/or other forms of financial accounts. The user sets rules or preferences specifying when the closed loop account is accessed when a wallet account transaction is attempted, such as only choosing to use a gift card on a purchase that exhausts the entire gift card amount. If additional funds are required to satisfy the transaction request, the payment processing system seeks authorization for the balance of the transaction from another card issuer system associated with the account. To fund any remaining portion of the transaction, the payment processing system transmits an authorization request to an alternate payment account issuer. The alternate payment instrument is an open loop account, such as a credit card, a debit card, or an open loop stored value card.
Fernandes et al. (US 20200065783 A1) discloses a virtual wallet application that can support multi-card payment processing using a virtual card. The virtual wallet application can receive a selection of at least two payment cards in the virtual wallet application, a corresponding amount for each of the at least two payment cards, and an indication to perform the split payment. In response to receiving the indication to perform the split payment, the virtual wallet application can validate the user and create a transaction request. The transaction request can include the virtual card, tokens of the at least two payment cards and their corresponding portions of the split payment amount, and a split payment flag indicator. The transaction request can be routed by an acquirer to the split services server, which extracts the information of the multiple cards and manages pre-authorization requests to the corresponding issuers. The pre-authorization request can be performed by generating a sub-transaction identifier for each issuer of each payment card of the at least two payment cards, and requesting pre-authorization for each of the at least two payment cards by communicating a pre-auth request to each corresponding issuer. The pre-authorization outcome is transmitted to an acquirer.
Nelms et al. (US 20190114608 A1) discloses a system for associating a user account with a plurality of digital wallet accounts in the user accounts database, and at least one of a plurality of digital wallet accounts is associated with two or more payment methods. Each payment account may be linked to a plurality of conventional payment instruments, such as a credit card, a debit card, a gift card, and a bank account, and be linked to a plurality of digital wallet accounts. After a transaction request is received from a user device associated with the user account, a digital wallet provider is selected from the plurality of digital wallet accounts associated with the user account. A payment authorization request is sent to a digital wallet provider system associated with the digital wallet provider for payment authorization. The system may use a set of user-defined rules that indicate which payment method should be used for a transaction. The system may first use gift card balance and charge the remaining balance to a digital wallet account.
Pearce et al. (US 20230230072 A1) discloses utilizing different types of controls to control whether to permit or block the actions associated with the payment cards. The purchase control of a payment card prevents the payment card from being used at a merchant point of sale. A merchant e-commerce control either permits or blocks the debit card from being stored at a merchant e-commerce site as a stored payment method. A travel fraud detection control turns on or off a fraud detection feature.
The cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose the specific combination of receiving a first data record associated with a first account into a digital wallet and a second data record associated with a second account into the digital wallet, wherein the first account is associated with a prepaid card having prepaid funds associated therewith and the second account is associated with a second card having available funds associated therewith; generating a token primary account number (PAN) and linking the token PAN to (ii) the first data record, (ii) a back end associated with the prepaid card, (iii) the second data record, and (iv) a back end associated with the second card, wherein the token PAN is configured for use via a single holding account associated with the token PAN and in association with the digital wallet to provide access to a combined amount of funds associated with the digital wallet, the combined amount of funds including the prepaid funds of the prepaid card and the available funds of the second card; in response to receiving transaction data from a merchant for a transaction initiated with the merchant using the digital wallet that exceeds the prepaid funds of the prepaid card: evaluating the transaction data against token domain restriction controls associated with the token PAN, the token domain restriction controls being stored within the memory device; based on a determination that the transaction data does not violate the token domain restriction controls, evaluating digital wallet metadata associated with the transaction data against metadata stored in the memory device for the token PAN; and based on a determination that the digital wallet metadata associated with the transaction data is consistent with the metadata stored in the memory device for the token PAN, determining an optimal payment structure by applying an algorithm stored within the memory device to the combined amount of funds, wherein the optimal payment structure as determined in association with the algorithm includes a first portion of the combined amount of funds, the first portion of the combined amount of funds including (i) all of the prepaid funds of the prepaid card and (ii) a portion of the available funds of the second card that is equal to an amount of the transaction less all of the prepaid funds, wherein the optimal payment structure further includes applying all of the prepaid funds to the transaction before the portion of the available funds of the second card is applied to the transaction; sending, via the back end associated with the prepaid card, a first authorization request to a first bank associated with the first account and, via the back end associated with the second card, a second authorization request to a second bank associated with the second account based on the optimal payment structure; based on the first bank authorizing the first transaction and the second bank authorizing the second transaction, transmitting a third authorization request to a holding account bank associated with the holding account; and in response to authorization of the transaction from the holding account bank, transmitting an electronic message to a merchant bank associated with the merchant to complete the transaction via satisfaction of the transaction amount with the first portion of the combined amount of funds. Therefore, the limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with other limitations clearly claimed for patent, are novel and unobvious. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Greene et al. (US 10986541 B2) discloses generating a generic token and linking one or more resource credentials of a user with the generic token.
Isaacson et al. (WO 2012082831 A1) discloses managing regifting of a group gift. A recipient or a purchaser of the gift is registered with the system using their payment accounts in advance, and a policy manages money transfers for the gift.
Smallwood et al. (US 20190220848 A1) discloses a system for managing virtual gift cards. A gift card may be transferred to other users, split multiple times into smaller values, and exchanged into new cards for different retailers.
Pitz et al. (US 20170193484 A1) discloses receiving transaction information associated with a cardholder's multi-account payment identifier, the multi-account payment identifier being linked to: (i) a credit card account, (ii) a debit card account, (iii) a bank account, (iv) a pre-paid account, (v) a virtual wallet, and/or (vi) a retailer-branded account.
Fernandes et al. (US 20200065783 A1) discloses linking at least two payment cards with a virtual card. In response to receiving the indication to perform the split payment, the virtual wallet application can validate the user and create a transaction request. The transaction request can include the virtual card, tokens of the at least two payment cards and their corresponding portions of the split payment amount, and a split payment flag indicator.
Mendelovich (US 20050125343 A1) discloses a method of using one of a plurality of existing credit card accounts belonging to a consumer, which includes providing account data to a single service provider for a plurality of existing credit card accounts belonging to the consumer and providing the consumer with a compilation credit card associated with the plurality of existing credit card accounts of the consumer. One of the credit cards is selected for a transaction based on the predefined preferences of the consumer.
Kim et al. (KR 20150094580 A) discloses utilizing an optimal payment option recommendation algorithm to determine an optimal payment structure. The optimal payment option recommendation algorithm determines the result information based on each of the plurality of payment means and detailed history information.
Bhosle et al. (US 20130232067 A1) discloses linking plurality of accounts, including a credit card account, a debit card account, a gift card account, a stored value account, and or other account, with a single master account. Upon receipt of the charge request, the cost sharing application identifies a master account associated with the charge request. The cost sharing application accesses the business rules that are used to determine a charge distribution allocation for the master account. The charge distribution allocation specifies a percentage of the amount indicated in the charge request to charge one or more of the accounts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699