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 action is in reply to the response filed on November 14, 2025.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 were cancelled.
Claims 22 and 23 were added.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22, and 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention merely involves, and does not recite, a judicial exception. Applicant further argued that the claims, when taken as a whole, recite an improved process for controlling and modifying security controls for a plurality of payment devices, as well as controlling authentication processes for one or more payment devices. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recited the aggregation of data and an authentication process that included the comparison and matching of data. The aggregation, comparison and matching of data are mental processes because they are concepts performed in the human mind. Applicant’s recitation of the mental processes is a recitation of a judicial exception. The alleged improved process is not patent eligible because it has not been transformed out of its abstract state by additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is the abstract process that has been improved, not any technology, computer, or computer network. An abstract idea remains abstract even if it has been improved upon. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims clearly recite a practical application of the abstract idea. Applicant further argued that the features of the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology and provide particular details related to how various aspects of the functions recited are performed. Examiner disagrees. The additional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention merely include computer components used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of patent eligible subject matter. Applicant’s claimed invention also is not rooted in computer technology because authentication processes exist outside of the computer environment. Applicant’s claimed invention also does not provide particular details related to how various aspects of the functions recited are performed because the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality, which is not indicative of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims recite a practical application by reciting multiple, specific, detailed, unique steps performed by or at particular devices that control security controls and authentication processes for payment devices and other computing devices. Examiner disagrees. The multiple, specific, detailed, unique steps referenced by Applicant are a part of the abstract idea and do not represent a recitation of a practical application. An abstract idea cannot also be a practical application of itself. The controlling of the security controls and authentication processes are not a practical application of the recited abstract idea because it does not provide a meaningful limitation of the abstract idea. For instance, disabling use of particular types of authentication data for processing transactions has the effect of changing the abstract idea, but it does not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because Examiner failed to consider the unique, specific ordered combination of features recited in claim 1 under Step 2B and merely provides conclusory statements. Examiner disagrees. Examiner did in fact consider the ordered combination of features recited in claim 1 under Step 2B and did not find an inventive concept attributable to the ordered combination. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant non-persuasive.
Applicant argued Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention recites significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-23 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 8 and product Claim 15. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[at least one processor;]
[a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor;] and
[a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:]
receive user product data, wherein the user product data includes one or more accounts and one or more payment devices associated with a user;
aggregate the user product data including the one or more accounts and payment devices of the user, wherein aggregating the user product data generates user-specific ringfenced user products, wherein a modification to a security control of one user product of the user products causes modification of security controls of all ringfenced user products;
[access an application executing on a user computing device, wherein accessing the application includes] providing first authentication data to authenticate the user to the application;
identify first security controls associated with the ringfenced user products, wherein the first security controls include a first security level;
receive, [from the user computing device and via the application executing on the user computing device,] a request to modify the first security controls associated with the ringfenced user products from the first security level to a second security level;
authenticate the user;
authenticate the user in response to the request to modify the first security controls associated with the ringfenced user products from the first security level to the second security level, wherein authenticating the user in response to the request to modifying the first security controls associated with the ringfenced user products includes:
displaying, [on the user computing device,] a request for second authentication data, wherein the second authentication data is a different type of authentication data from the first authentication data;
receiving the second authentication data;
comparing the received second authentication data to pre-stored data;
responsive to determining that the received second authentication data does not match the pre-stored data, denying the request to modify the first security controls;
responsive to determining that the second authentication data does match the pre-stored data,
modify parameters of the ringfenced user products from first parameters associated with the first security level to second parameters associated with the second security level, wherein the second parameters include disabling use of one or more types of authentication data for processing transactions by the ringfenced user products;
transmit the second parameters [to an application programming interface gateway of a transaction processing computing system, wherein transmitting the second parameters to the transaction processing computing system causes the transaction processing computing system] to modify security controls of the ringfenced user products based on the second parameters and implement the second parameters in transaction decisioning;
determine whether a predetermined time period has expired;
responsive to determining the predetermined time period has not expired, maintaining the modified parameters of the ringfenced products as the second parameters; and
responsive to determining that the predetermined time period has expired:
further modify the modified parameters to revert the parameters from the second parameters to the first parameters; and
transmit the further modified parameters including the first parameters [to the application programming interface gateway of the transaction processing computing system, wherein transmitting the further modified parameters to the transaction processing computing system causes the transaction processing computing system] to modify security controls of the ringfenced user products based on the first parameters and implement the first parameters in transaction decisioning.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes because the limitations recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one processor, a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, a memory storing computer-readable instructions, the application programming interface gateway, the user computing device, and the transaction processing computing system in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of at least one processor, a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, a user computing device, an application programming interface gateway, a memory storing computer-readable instructions, and a transaction processing computing system. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-20, and 22-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-20, and 22-23 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-20, and 22-23 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-23 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Bleisner (US 2021/0073034) discloses a system and method for cloud resources management.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event of a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
November 27, 2025
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693