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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 17, 2025 has been entered.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on December 17, 2025 for Application No. 18/037,465 filed on May 17, 2023, title: “Method And System For Generating A Dynamic Card Verification Value For Processing A Transaction”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 were pending. By the 12/17/2025 Response, new claim 54 has been added, and no claim has been amended has been amended or cancelled. Claims 17-53 are not elected for prosecution by the 03/04/2025 Response. Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 54 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
The Application was filed on 05/17/2023 and is a 371 of PCT/US2021/059607 filed on 11/17/2021 which has a Provisional Application 63/115,888 filed on 11/19/2020. This application claims no priority of a foreign application. For the purpose of examination, the 11/19/2020 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 form with the examiner’s initials is enclosed to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-16 recite a method of providing a dynamic Card Verification (dCVV) to a user of a transaction instrument. The claims recite a process which falls within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A method of providing a dynamic Card Verification Value (dCVV) to a user of a transaction instrument, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) a mobile device, associated with the user and with an account associated with the transaction instrument, initiating a non-payment communication between the mobile device and the transaction instrument by sending a first non-payment communication from the mobile device to the transaction instrument;
(b) the mobile device receiving a message from the transaction instrument in the non-payment communication;
(c) the mobile device transmitting a prompt to an IP address or web address over a global computer information network;
(d) the mobile device receiving a secure communication in response to the prompt, the communication containing the dCVV code; and
(e) providing the dCVV code to the user; and
wherein the transaction instrument includes a first memory for conducting card-present, physical payment transactions and a second memory for conducting non-payment transactions, and wherein the first memory is separate and discrete from the second memory.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a payment card, a mobile device, a transaction instrument, and a server). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including a method for generating and providing a dCVV code to a user of a transaction card for authenticating a payment transaction. Thus, the claim recites a method of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea in nature. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim further recites the additional elements (see underlined below). The additional elements, such as separate memories for separate transactions (card-present physical payment transaction and non-payment transaction), are additional details for the existing functional steps of the claims which further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis because a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Claim 1, A method of providing a dynamic Card Verification Value (dCVV) to a user of a transaction instrument, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) a mobile device, associated with the user and with an account associated with the transaction instrument, initiating a non-payment communication between the mobile device and the transaction instrument by sending a first non-payment communication from the mobile device to the transaction instrument;
(b) the mobile device receiving a message from the transaction instrument in the non-payment communication;
(c) the mobile device transmitting a prompt to an IP address or web address over a global computer information network;
(d) the mobile device receiving a secure communication in response to the prompt, the communication containing the dCVV code; and
(e) providing the dCVV code to the user; and
wherein the transaction instrument includes a first memory for conducting card-present, physical payment transactions and a second memory for conducting non-payment transactions, and wherein the first memory is separate and discrete from the second memory.
Furthermore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim includes the additional elements, such as a payment card, a mobile device, a transaction instrument, and a serve, all are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system. This is substantiated by the Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 22-33 and Figure 1 (see US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/03419328-A1) to perform the initiating, receiving, transmitting, receiving, and providing steps. The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a mobile device to perform the initiating, receiving, transmitting, receiving, and providing functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 depend on independent claim 1 and thus include all of the limitations and features of the independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to the same abstract idea as in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements “wherein the transaction instrument is a transaction card.”. The limitations are additional details for the transaction instrument and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional details for the transaction instrument (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements “wherein the non-payment communication is a near-field communication (NFC).”. The limitations are additional details for the non-payment communication and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional details for the non-payment communication (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements “wherein the communication containing the dCVV code originates from a server associated with a dCVV generation processor that is configured to generate the dCVV code.”. The limitations are additional details for the origination of the communication containing the dCVV code and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional details for the communication (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements “comprising providing the dCVV code to the user via the mobile device.”. The limitations are additional details for the providing function by the mobile device and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional details for the providing function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements “wherein the mobile device provides the dCVV code visually, audibly, or tactilely.”. The limitations are additional details for the information provided by the mobile device and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional details for the providing function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements “wherein the mobile device is connected to the Internet.”. The limitations are additional details for the mobile device and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional information for the connection (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements “wherein the message received by the mobile device from the transaction instrument is configured to cause the mobile device to open a module of application software, wherein the application software is programmed with the web address or IP address to which the prompt in step (c) is directed.”. The limitations are additional detailed instructions for the received message and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements “wherein the requestor computing device is on a first network and the plurality of services platforms are hosted on a second network, and wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the at least one processor to receive the first request data signal via a network switch on the second network.”. The limitations are additional details for the received messaged and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional detailed information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements “wherein the mobile device initiates the non-payment communication after an interaction between the mobile device and the transaction instrument.”. The limitations are additional details for when to initiate the non-payment communication and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional information when to initiate the communication (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements “wherein the interaction between the mobile device and the transaction instrument is a tap on the mobile device.”. The limitations are additional details for operating the mobile device and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional information for operating the mobile device (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements “wherein the mobile device initiates the non-payment communication via a user interface of a module of application software.”. The limitations are additional details for the user interface of a module and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional information for the module (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements “wherein the mobile device receives a prompt from a web page, generated by the web page in response to entry of information on the web page, wherein the prompt from the web page causes the mobile device to send the non-payment communication.”. The limitations are additional detailed instruction for mobile device and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., additional instructions for the mobile device (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements “further comprising the step of:
(f) the user of the transaction instrument supplying, over the global computer information network, the dCVV code to a transaction portal as part of transaction information.”. The limitations are additional details for the user when to supply the dCVV code to a transaction portal and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements “further comprising the step of:
(g) a transaction processor associated with the transaction portal communicating the transaction information, including the dCVV code, to a payment transaction clearinghouse.”. The limitations are additional details for the transaction processor to communicate the transaction information to a payment transaction clearing house and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements “further comprising the step of:
(h) the payment transaction clearinghouse authenticating the transaction, wherein authenticating includes verifying the dCVV code supplied by the cardholder matches the dCVV code generated by dCVV-generation processor.”. The limitations are additional details for the clearing house authenticating the transaction and amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The limitations of claims 2-16 further define the abstract idea and are generic limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Thus, the dependent claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claim and additional details and requirements for managing bill presentment and payment process. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for generating and providing a dCVV code to a user of a transaction card for authenticating a payment transaction. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, system memory, or query, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Per pages 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the pending claims require that the transaction instrument includes first memory for conducting card-present and second memory for conducting non-payment transactions. The claims include appropriate separation between memories such that a breach in one memory does not result in a pathway to breach memory of the other. Thus, the pending claims provide a technical solution to a known technical problem and the claims are patent-eligible.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 analysis above, the additional elements (separate memories for separate transactions - card-present physical payment transaction and non-payment transaction), are additional details for the existing functional steps of the claims which further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis because a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. An updated prior art search did not identify any art, individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element of the claims at this time.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 54 is potential allowable if Applicant changes the status of claims 17-53 from “withdrawn” to “cancelled” in the next response.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 and 54 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695