DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 the Application
Claims 1-18 have been examined in the application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Drawings
The following is a quotation of 37 CFR 1.84 (l):
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The following is a quotation of 37 CFR 1.84 (p):
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to because Sheets 48-49 (containing Figs. 45 through 46) and Sheets 57-61 (containing Figs. 51A through 52) contain text that is less than 1/8 inch in height as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) and lines that are not sufficiently dense and dark to give the lines satisfactory reproduction characteristics as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
35 USC § 112(f) Notification
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
• Claim limitation "means to store a component collection" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder: "means to" coupled with functional language: "store a component collection" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
• Claim limitation "means to process processor-executable instructions from the component collection" has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder: "means to" coupled with functional language: "process processor-executable instructions from the component collection" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1. A payment processing, comprising: ; a collection stored; disposed in communication with, executing instructions from the collection, the collection storage structured with instructions, comprising: generate, a set of statement interactions, each statement interaction in the set of statement interactions structured to be associated with a statement linked to a member; obtain, the member's selection of a statement via an associated statement interaction; generate, a statement detail interaction structured to comprise EOB data associated with the selected statement; obtain, a member payment method details for a member responsibility payment to a provider associated with the selected statement, the member payment method details comprising payment method details for one of: bank account, credit card, stored value card, debit card, HSA, third party wallet; determine, a trace corresponding to the member responsibility payment for the provider, in which the trace links a payment with an EOP data file corresponding to the selected statement; generate, a payment card corresponding to the member responsibility payment for the provider, in which the payment card is associated with the payment amount of the member responsibility payment and with the trace, in which the generation of the payment card triggers the generation of a payment card, and in which the payment card is any of: debit card, credit card, virtual debit card, virtual credit card, reloadable debit card, one-time credit card, one-time debit card; generate, a card payment request, in which the card payment request includes the payment amount and the trace associated with the payment card; send, the card payment request using a payment request route associated with the payment card; generate, a payment request corresponding to the member responsibility payment for the provider, in which the payment request includes the payment amount and the trace associated with the payment card; and send, the payment request, in which the payment request corresponds to the payment. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2. claim 1, in which the collection storage is further structured with instructions, comprising: configure, the payment card to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category. Claim 3 -: 3. claim 1, in which the payment card involves a single use card. Claim 4 -: 4. claim 3, in which generating the payment card includes generating a card number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the payment card. Claim 5 -: 5. claim 1, in which the payment card involves a reloadable card. Claim 6 -: 6. claim 5, in which generating... [id. at 4], Claim 7 -: 7. claim 6, in which generating the payment card includes incrementing the CVV for a card to generate a unique payment identifier. Claim 8 -: 8. claim 6, in which generating the payment card includes incrementing the expiration date for a card to generate a unique payment identifier. Claim 9 -: 9. claim 1, in which the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network-, virtually. Claim 10 -: 10. claim 1, in which the card payment request is sent from an issuer to a payment network-. Claim 11 -: 11. claim 1, in which the card payment request is sent from an issuer to an acquirer. Claim 12 -: 12. claim 1, in which the collection... [id. at 2], update, the provider virtually with details regarding the payment, in which the details include the payment amount and the trace. Claim 13 -: 13. claim 1, in which the selected statement corresponds to a medical claim from the provider. Claim 14 -: 14. claim 13, in which the collection... [id. at 2], obtain, a claim verification for the medical claim from the member. Claim 15 -: 15. claim 1, in which the trace includes the member's TIN as the payer identifier. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 16 -: 16. A payment processing readable, non-transient medium, the medium storing a collection, the collection storage structured with instructions comprising: generate, a set... obtain, the member's... generate, a statement... obtain, a member... determine, a trace... generate, a payment... generate, a card... send, the card... generate, a payment... send, the payment... [id. at 1], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 17 -: 17. A payment processing implemented system, comprising: means to store a collection; means to process instructions from the collection, the collection storage structured with instructions including: generate, a set... obtain, the member's... generate, a statement... obtain, a member... determine, a trace... generate, a payment... generate, a card... send, the card... generate, a payment... send, the payment... [id. at 1], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 18 -: 18. A payment processing implemented process, including processing instructions from a collection stored, the collection storage structured with instructions comprising: generate, a set... obtain, the member's... generate, a statement... obtain, a member... determine, a trace... generate, a payment... generate, a card... send, the card... generate, a payment... send, the payment... [id. at 1], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: healthcare transaction facilitation platform apparatuses, methods and systems as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1 and 16-18 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 16 and is described by the steps of independent claim 17 and is described by the steps of independent claim 18.
Claim 1: Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "apparatus", "at least one memory", "component", "at least one processor", "processor-executable", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+". However, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "apparatus", "at least one memory", "component", "at least one processor", "processor-executable", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+" of independent claim 1 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing apparatus, comprising", "at least one memory", "a component collection stored in … at least one memory", "at least one processor disposed … with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "obtain, via the at least … third party electronic wallet", "determine, via the at least … to the selected statement", "generate, via the at least … card, one-time debit card", "generate, via the at least … the payment card datastructure", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "generate, via the at least … payment card datastructure; and" and "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the "at least one processor disposed … with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "obtain, via the at least … third party electronic wallet", "determine, via the at least … to the selected statement", "generate, via the at least … card, one-time debit card", "generate, via the at least … the payment card datastructure", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "generate, via the at least … payment card datastructure; and", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment" step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a component collection stored in … at least one memory", "at least one processor disposed … with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a component collection stored in … at least one memory", "at least one processor disposed … with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 16: Specifically pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 16 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "processor-readable", "component", "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+". However, independent claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "processor-readable", "component", "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+" of independent claim 16 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing processor-readable, non-transient … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "obtain, via the at least … third party electronic wallet", "determine, via the at least … to the selected statement", "generate, via the at least … card, one-time debit card", "generate, via the at least … the payment card datastructure", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "generate, via the at least … payment card datastructure; and" and "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "A payment processing processor-readable, non-transient … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "A payment processing processor-readable, non-transient … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 1 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17: Particularly pertaining to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 17 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "processor-implemented", "component", "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+". However, independent claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "processor-implemented", "component", "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+" of independent claim 17 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing processor-implemented system, comprising", "means to store a component collection", "means to process processor-executable instructions … with processor-executable instructions including", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "obtain, via the at least … third party electronic wallet", "determine, via the at least … to the selected statement", "generate, via the at least … card, one-time debit card", "generate, via the at least … the payment card datastructure", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "generate, via the at least … payment card datastructure; and" and "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "means to store a component collection", "means to process processor-executable instructions … with processor-executable instructions including", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "means to store a component collection", "means to process processor-executable instructions … with processor-executable instructions including", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1; and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1, and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 1. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 18 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "processor-implemented", "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "component", "at least one memory", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+". However, independent claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "processor-implemented", "processor-executable", "at least one processor", "component", "at least one memory", "interface mechanisms", "interface mechanism", "datastructure", "electronic", "re-association trace number", "EFT", "Level 3", "via a network", and "ACH CCD+" of independent claim 18 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A payment processing processor-implemented process, … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "obtain, via the at least … third party electronic wallet", "determine, via the at least … to the selected statement", "generate, via the at least … card, one-time debit card", "generate, via the at least … the payment card datastructure", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "generate, via the at least … payment card datastructure; and" and "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "A payment processing processor-implemented process, … with processor-executable instructions comprising", "generate, via the at least … linked to a member", "obtain, via the at least … statement interaction interface mechanism", "generate, via the at least … with the selected statement", "send, via the at least … with the payment card", "send, via the at least … to the EFT payment", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 1 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 18 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1 and 16-18 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 2-15 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2: Dependent claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "Codes" of dependent claim 2 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "payment network", and "virtual terminal" of dependent claim 9 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "server", and "payment network" of dependent claim 10 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "server" of dependent claim 11 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "virtual terminal" of dependent claim 12 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2: Dependent claim 2 adds an additional method step of "in which the component collection storage is further structured with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "configure, via the at least one processor, the payment card datastructure to be usable with a specified set of allowed Merchant Category Codes". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 2 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the "in which the component collection storage is further structured with processor-executable instructions, comprising" steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3: Dependent claim 3 adds an additional method step of "in which the payment card datastructure involves a single use card". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 3 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 3 is ineligible.
Claims 4 and 6: Dependent claims 4 and 6 add additional method steps of "in which generating the payment card datastructure includes generating a card number, a CVV, and an expiration date for the payment card". However, the additional method steps of dependent claim 4 and 6 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 4 and 6 are ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds an additional method step of "in which the payment card datastructure involves a reloadable card". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 5 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 7: Dependent claim 7 adds an additional method step of "in which generating the payment card datastructure includes incrementing the CVV for a card to generate a unique payment identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 7 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8: Dependent claim 8 adds an additional method step of "in which generating the payment card datastructure includes incrementing the expiration date for a card to generate a unique payment identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 8 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 adds an additional method step of "in which the payment request route is one of: an acquirer, a payment network, a virtual terminal". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 9 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10: Dependent claim 10 adds an additional method step of "in which the Level 3 card payment request datastructure is sent from an issuer's server to a payment network's server". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 10 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 1, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 adds an additional method step of "in which the Level 3 card payment request datastructure is sent from an issuer's server to an acquirer's server". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 11 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 10 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 10 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds additional method steps of "in which the component collection storage is further structured with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "update, via the at least one processor, the provider's virtual terminal with details regarding … in which the details include the payment amount and the re-association trace number". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 12 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 2 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the "in which the component collection storage is further structured with processor-executable instructions, comprising" steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13: Dependent claim 13 adds an additional method step of "in which the selected statement corresponds to a medical claim from the provider". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 13 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14: Dependent claim 14 adds an additional method step of "in which the component collection storage is further structured with processor-executable instructions, comprising", "obtain, via the at least one processor, a claim verification for the medical claim from the member". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 14 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 2 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 2 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15: Dependent claim 15 adds an additional method step of "in which the re-association trace number includes the member's TIN as the payer identifier". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 15 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 3 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 3 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20100100480 A1 by Altman; Theresa et al. discloses Apparatus and Method for Bill Payment Card Enrollment ; wherein: a bill payment provider offers to a customer an option to pay a bill from a biller using a payment card account.
USPGPub No. US 20070130111 A1 by Stoudt; Thomas et al. discloses CLAIMS STATUS INTERROGATION AND TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ; wherein: a system and method is provided for processing claim status queries and information concerning claims related to provisions of healthcare to patients.
USPGPub No. US 20100088237 A1 by Wankmueller; John R. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR USING PHYSICAL PAYMENT CARDS IN SECURE E-COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS ; wherein: pursuant to some embodiments, methods, systems, apparatus, computer program code and means for conducting an online transaction by a user operating a computer are provided which include identifying, at the computer, that the user has selected a secure payment option during a transaction with a merchant.
USPGPub No. US 20070012759 A1 by Allarea; Mark P. et al. discloses Electronic card tracking system.
USPGPub No. US 20100138324 A1 by Allen; Robert M. discloses METHOD OF PROVIDING SECURE PAYMENT AND TRANSACTION RECONCILIATION.
USPGPub No. US 20040215560 A1 by Amalraj, Peter et al. discloses Integrated payment system and method.
USPAT No. US 5930777 A to Barber; Timothy P. discloses Method of charging for pay-per-access information over a network.
USPGPub No. US 20040249854 A1 by Barnes-Leon, Maria Theresa et al. discloses Common common object.
USPGPub No. US 20060265326 A1 by Barrett; Mary Hogue discloses Method and apparatus for payment without payment card infrastructure.
USPGPub No. US 20040148255 A1 by Beck, Philip D. et al. discloses Time-of-transaction foreign currency conversion.
USPGPub No. US 20070175982 A1 by Bonalle; David S. et al. discloses System, method, and computer program product for issuing and using debit cards.
USPAT No. US 7685067 B1 to Britto; Mark J. et al. discloses Computer-assisted funds transfer system.
USPGPub No. US 20070136211 A1 by Brown; Kerry D. et al. discloses FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH DYNAMIC CARD VERIFICATION VALUES.
USPAT No. US 5950179 A to Buchanan; William B. et al. discloses Method and system for issuing a secured credit card.
USPAT No. US 6088682 A to Burke; Bertram V. discloses Funds distribution system connected with point of sale transactions.
USPAT No. US 6876971 B1 to Burke; Bertram V. discloses Funds distribution system connected with point of sale transaction.
USPGPub No. US 20110218838 A1 by Byce; Chuck et al. discloses ECONOMETRICAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY ANALYSIS APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20120130731 A1 by Canetto; Matt Steven discloses SCHEDULED FUNDS TRANSFER PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20090076954 A1 by Carmody; Michael D. et al. discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SETTLING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20030055783 A1 by Cataline, Glen R. et al. discloses System and method for optimized funding of electronic transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20070005498 A1 by Cataline; Glen R. et al. discloses System and method for optimized funding of electronic transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20070162387 A1 by Cataline; Glen R. et al. discloses System and method for optimized funding of electronic transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20110166872 A1 by Cervenka; Karen L. et al. discloses AUTO-SUBSTANTIATION FOR HEALTHCARE UPON SPONSOR ACCOUNT THROUGH PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM.
USPAT No. US 6021943 A to Chastain; Robert H. discloses Process for executing payment transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20100017235 A1 by Clubb; Brian J. et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING UNCERTAIN TRANSACTION AMOUNTS IN A PAYMENT SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20060085337 A1 by Conforti; Cathleen M. et al. discloses Method and system for using payment cards as a payment option within an online bill payment and presentment solution.
USPGPub No. US 20070007335 A1 by Cracchiolo; Christopher P. et al. discloses Healthcare Card Closed Loop Network System.
USPAT No. US 7840486 B2 to D'Agostino; John discloses System and method for performing secure credit card purchases.
USPGPub No. US 20110258004 A1 by DEAN; Tom et al. discloses Reconciliation , Automation and Tagging of Healthcare Information.
USPAT No. US 6105008 A to Davis; Virgil M. et al. discloses Internet loading system using smart card.
USPAT No. US 6282522 B1 to Davis; Virgil M. et al. discloses Internet payment system using smart card.
USPAT No. US 6456984 B1 to Demoff; Jeff S. et al. discloses Method and system for providing temporary credit authorizations.
USPGPub No. US 20110208659 A1 by Easterly; Frank et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING SECURE TRANSACTIONS USING AN INTERNET ACCESSIBLE DEVICE AND APPLICATION.
USPGPub No. US 20080219421 A1 by Enriquez; Eugenio Donato Renato Limlengco discloses System and Method for Transferring Credit Between Subscribers of Differing Telecommunications Carriers.
USPGPub No. US 20080021817 A1 by Epple; Renee et al. discloses Method, apparatus, and computer program product for repository data maximization.
USPGPub No. US 20030028481 A1 by Flitcroft, Daniel I. et al. discloses Credit card system and method.
USPAT No. US 5914472 A to Foladare; Mark Jeffrey et al. discloses Credit card spending authorization control system.
USPGPub No. US 20100274719 A1 by Fordyce, III; Edward W. discloses Delayed Settlement Transactions.
USPAT No. US 6000832 A to Franklin; D. Chase et al. discloses Electronic online commerce card with customer generated transaction proxy number for online transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20110093387 A1 by Fuerstenberg; Zack et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NON-CREDIT CARD BILLERS TO ACCEPT CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS.
USPGPub No. US 20110119077 A1 by GICE; Jon et al. discloses VIRTUAL MEDICAL SELF MANAGEMENT TOOL.
USPGPub No. US 20030061171 A1 by Gilbert, Kevin et al. discloses System for and method of effecting an electronic transaction.
USPGPub No. US 20050108121 A1 by Gravett, Amber et al. discloses Open loop stored value system.
USPGPub No. US 20050108159 A1 by Gravett, Amber et al. discloses Open loop stored value account configuration.
USPGPub No. US 20120036042 A1 by Graylin; Will et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CHECKOUT AND CUSTOMER DATA CAPTURE IN COMMERCE APPLICATIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20100205091 A1 by Graziano; Joseph M. et al. discloses AUTOMATED PAYMENT TRANSACTION SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20140074497 A1 by Griffin; Beth M. et al. discloses SELF-RECONCILED MULTI-PART TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20130166332 A1 by Hammad; Ayman discloses MOBILE WALLET STORE AND SERVICE INJECTION PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20040030647 A1 by Hansen, Kurt L. et al. discloses Staged transactions systems and methods.
USPGPub No. US 20120303425 A1 by Katzin; Edward et al. discloses MERCHANT-CONSUMER BRIDGING PLATFORM APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPAT No. US 8494938 B1 to Kazenas; Joseph A. discloses Claims card.
USPGPub No. US 20070175984 A1 by Khandaker; Omar F. et al. discloses OPEN-LOOP GIFT CARD SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20120123940 A1 by Killian; Patrick L. et al. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR UNIVERSAL PAYMENT ACCOUNT TRANSLATION.
USPGPub No. US 20070294168 A1 by King; Daniel discloses Router-based remittance systems and methods.
USPAT No. US 8392208 B1 to Klieman; Michael S. et al. discloses Method and system for health expense verification and processing.
USPGPub No. US 20050137972 A1 by Krumlauf, Bruce E. discloses Methods and systems for the processing of credit payment data.
USPGPub No. US 20070282741 A1 by Kumar; Vinod et al. discloses Order system payment routing.
USPGPub No. US 20020016745 A1 by Kuwahara, Toru et al. discloses Settlement intermediation processing apparatus, storage medium in which a program for settlement intermediation processing is stored, computer program for settlement intermediation, online shop apparatus, and on-line shopping method and system.
USPGPub No. US 20110022514 A1 by Lal; Raghav et al. discloses Loyalty Rewards Optimization Bill Payables and Receivables Service.
USPGPub No. US 20100205078 A1 by Lawrence; Kimberly et al. discloses PUSH PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING BILLING FILE EXCHANGE.
USPAT No. US 6327578 B1 to Linehan; Mark discloses Four-party credit/debit payment protocol.
USPGPub No. US 20090177579 A1 by Ling; James discloses Transaction System Supporting Dynamic Currency Conversion.
USPGPub No. US 20100088206 A1 by Lister; James E. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS ELECTRONIC PAYMENT PROCESSING.
USPGPub No. US 20070282743 A1 by Lovelett; John M. et al. discloses Electronic Transaction Apparatus and Method.
USPGPub No. US 20120239556 A1 by Magruder; Andrew M. et al. discloses LATENCY PAYMENT SETTLEMENT APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20110042456 A1 by Masaryk; Michal et al. discloses Method and System of Electronic Payment Transaction, In Particular By Using Contactless Payment Means.
USPGPub No. US 20060253390 A1 by McCarthy; James Alan et al. discloses Private label purchase card acceptance systems and methods.
USPGPub No. US 20100088207 A1 by McLaughlin; Edward et al. discloses Method and System for Linkage of Generally Available Healthcare Accounts to Credit Card.
USPGPub No. US 20070265887 A1 by McLaughlin; Mark R. et al. discloses Integrated electronic business systems.
USPGPub No. US 20020120563 A1 by McWilliam, William J. et al. discloses System and method for effecting anonymous payments.
USPGPub No. US 20090182654 A1 by Mullen; Matthew et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA COMPLETION INCLUDING PUSH IDENTIFIER.
USPGPub No. US 20090173782 A1 by Muscato; Michael A. discloses Dynamic Card Validation Value.
USPGPub No. US 20100088204 A1 by Nambiar; Anant et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DYNAMIC INTERCHANGE PRICING.
USPGPub No. US 20100250376 A1 by Nandiraju; Srikanth discloses VIRTUAL TERMINAL FOR MOBILE DEVICES.
USPGPub No. US 20120253989 A1 by Otruba; Richard A. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PAYMENT BY VIRTUAL CREDIT CARD.
USPGPub No. US 20080099556 A1 by Park; Jung Woong discloses Card Having Password Input Key.
USPGPub No. US 20110270693 A1 by Paschini; Miles et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONIC PREPAID ACCOUNT REPLENISHMENT.
USPGPub No. US 20110225058 A1 by Patterson; Barbara E. et al. discloses MESSAGING INCLUDING VALUE ACCOUNT CONVERSION.
USPGPub No. US 20080162313 A1 by Patton; John M. discloses INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION SOLUTION.
USPGPub No. US 20070185795 A1 by Petrime; Kammie et al. discloses System and method for customizing financial instruments.
USPAT No. US 5946669 A to Polk; John discloses Method and apparatus for payment processing using debit-based electronic funds transfer and disbursement processing using addendum-based electronic data interchange.
USPAT No. US 7225155 B1 to Polk; John discloses Method and apparatus for payment processing using debit-based electronic funds transfer and disbursement processing using addendum-based electronic data interchange.
USPGPub No. US 20120253852 A1 by Pourfallah; Stacy S. et al. discloses RESTRICTED-USE ACCOUNT PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20170039549 A1 by QUENTIN; Pierre discloses METHOD FOR PROCESSING TRANSACTION DATA, DEVICE AND CORRESPONDING PROGRAM.
USPGPub No. US 20070272739 A1 by RANDAZZA; JOSEPH R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20080290155 A1 by RANDAZZA; JOSEPH R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20080040265 A1 by Rackley III; Brady Lee et al. discloses Methods and Systems For Making a Payment Via A Stored Value Card in a Mobile Environment.
USPGPub No. US 20110238553 A1 by Raj; Ashwin et al. discloses ELECTRONIC ACCOUNT-TO-ACCOUNT FUNDS TRANSFER.
USPGPub No. US 20070282690 A1 by Randazza; Joseph R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20080275799 A1 by Randazza; Joseph R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20110320316 A1 by Randazza; Joseph R. et al. discloses PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS.
USPGPub No. US 20050218213 A1 by Rasnake, Lucy M. et al. discloses System and method for mailing account cards.
USPGPub No. US 20050252961 A1 by Rasti, Mehran Randall discloses Charge card and debit transactions using a variable charge number.
USPGPub No. US 20090119190 A1 by Realini; Carol discloses Virtual Pooled Account for Mobile Banking.
USPGPub No. US 20100145848 A1 by Robbins, JR.; John J. et al. discloses System and Method for Providing Credit Card with Back-End Payment Filtering.
USPGPub No. US 20070228146 A1 by Rogers; Lisa H. et al. discloses Managing Medical-Related Financial Data.
USPGPub No. US 20120124496 A1 by Rose; Mark et al. discloses GEOGRAPHIC VOLUME ANALYTICS APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS.
USPGPub No. US 20080097810 A1 by Sadowski; Brian R. et al. discloses System and Method of Managing Workflow for Express Creation and Initialization of Merchant Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20080097879 A1 by Sadowski; Brian R. et al. discloses System and Method of Interfacing Web Services to Express Creation and Initialization of Merchant Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20080097897 A1 by Sadowski; Brian R. et al. discloses System and Method of Express Creation and Initialization of Merchant Accounts.
USPGPub No. US 20120233073 A1 by Salmon; Diane et al. discloses Universal Value Exchange Apparatuses, Methods and Systems.
USPGPub No. US 20060022033 A1 by Smets; Patrick et al. discloses Method and system using a bitmap for passing contactless payment card transaction variables in standardized data formats.
USPGPub No. US 20020194027 A1 by Smith, Thomas L. discloses EOB distribution system.
USPGPub No. US 20020120846 A1 by Stewart, Whitney Hilton et al. discloses Electronic payment and authentication system with debit and identification data verification and electronic check capabilities.
USPGPub No. US 20040054622 A1 by Strayer, Allen C. et al. discloses Method and system for merchant processing of purchase card transactions with expanded card type acceptance.
USPGPub No. US 20020062224 A1 by THORSEN, MICHAEL et al. discloses HEALTHCARE PAYMENT, REPORTING AND DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20090125429 A1 by Takayama; Hisashi discloses Mobile electronic commerce system.
USPGPub No. US 20110313926 A1 by Templeton; Randy J. discloses System and method for facilitating large scale payment transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20120136790 A1 by Templeton; Randy J. discloses System and method for facilitating large scale payment transactions including selecting communication routes.
USPAT No. US 10540675 B2 to Tietzen; Terrance Patrick et al. discloses Method, system and computer program for client acquisition and surveying.
USPGPub No. US 20120290375 A1 by Truong; Phuc et al. discloses Multi-Consumer Classification and Automated Rewards-Based System.
USPGPub No. US 20070233615 A1 by Tumminaro; John discloses Member-Supported Mobile Payment System.
USPGPub No. US 20070255653 A1 by Tumminaro; John et al. discloses Mobile Person-to-Person Payment System.
USPAT No. US 5991750 A to Watson; Craig discloses System and method for pre-authorization of individual account transactions.
USPGPub No. US 20110302080 A1 by White; Brigette et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VALUE INTERCHANGE PRICING.
USPGPub No. US 20050182724 A1 by Willard, Rick L. discloses INCREMENTAL NETWORK ACCESS PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD UTILIZING DEBIT CARDS.
USPGPub No. US 20050192892 A1 by Willard, Rick L. discloses AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE COMPATIBLE LOADABLE DEBIT CARD SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPGPub No. US 20080077438 A1 by Yanak; Edward et al. discloses ELECTRONIC PAYMENT DELIVERY SERVICE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 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, Matthew S. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 04/16/2026
Prosecution Insights