DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant filed the amendment on 11/15/2025. Claims 4-12 and 14-15 are pending. Claims 4, 12, and 14 are amended. Claim 15 is newly added. Claims 4-12 and 14-15 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “…Personal Information Number (PIN)…”, wherein underlined word “Information” should be corrected into “Identification”.
Claim 14 recites “… generated CVV or PIN matches the transmitted the dynamic CVV or PIN by the computing…”, wherein underlined article “the” is extra and after the underlined words “PIN” the word “code” is omitted.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
4. Applicant is of the opinion that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, but “to a specific technological solution for a technological problem”.
5. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Analysis of claims show that the claims 4 and 15 directed to an abstract idea of generating a number such as a CVV or PIN code grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical concepts”.
6. Applicant is of the opinion that the claimed system is integrated into a practical application by reciting secure payment processing, that require real-time timestamp, integrating with authenticating servers, coordinating with payment processing networks, and managing time- sensitive session.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mentioned above the claim features performed by using the computer components. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
7. Applicant is of the opinion that “the claimed invention represents a specific technological improvement to payment card security systems that goes well beyond abstract ideas or conventional computer implementation”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection was not based on conventional elements. To the contrary, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code (e.g., (claim 4) “…the at least one processor to perform operations comprising generating a dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) or Personal Information Number (PIN) code …”; (PGPub, para 10) “The present invention relates to a computing system… to implement a method of generating a dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) code for a transaction card…”) and does not improve functioning of a computer or computer technology.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
8. Rejection of claim 4 limitation “the user” based on “Lack of antecedent basis” due to amendment is withdrawn.
Applicant arguments toward rejection of claim 4 limitations “the probability”, “said digit previously calculated”, and “the last calculated interval” based on “Lack of antecedent basis” are not persuasive, the rejections are sustained.
Claim Interpretation
Intended Use
9. Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for”.
10. Claim 15 recites “(a) performs a first statistical manipulation … to define an alphabet…”.
The underlined limitations represent intended use and are not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
11. 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.
12. Claims 4-12 and 14-15 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.
13. In the instant case, claim 4 is directed to “system for generating a dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) or Personal Identification Number (PIN) code” and claim 15 is directed to “system for generating a dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) code”.
14. Claim 4 recites generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code. Specifically, the claim recites “(i) receiving a timestamp; (ii) receiving an initial code and personal data related to said transaction card and/or user of said transaction card; (iii) calculating a secret key based on a predefined formula receiving as input the initial code, timestamp and personal data; (iv) performing a first statistical manipulation on the secret key based on the digits of the secret key (alphabet), the probability of occurrence of each digit in the secret key, the digits of the initial code and reordering the alphabet accordingly; (v) performing a second statistical manipulation based on selecting a digit from the alphabet and partitioning an interval of the value of said digit, to sub-intervals based on the probabilities of occurrence of the digits in the reordered alphabet; (vi) performing a third statistical manipulation based on selecting a digit from the alphabet and partitioning the corresponding interval of said digit previously calculated, to sub-intervals based on the probabilities of occurrence of the digits in the reordered alphabet; (vii) repeating step (vi) for a predetermined number of times; and (viii) selecting a number from the last calculated interval as the dynamic CVV or PIN code”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and/or “Mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations”, and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
15. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 4 such as “a computing system”, “at least one processor”, “at least one memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor”, “computer readable instructions that when executed” and “a transaction card” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “receiving a timestamp” and “receiving an initial code and personal data related to said transaction card and/or user of said transaction card” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code.
16. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
17. Hence, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
18. Claim 15 recites generating a number such as CVV code. Specifically, the claim recites “(i) receive … a request to generate a dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) code, the request including a timestamp and personal data associated with … cardholder; (ii) calculate a secret key based on a predefined formula receiving as inputs an initial code, the timestamp, and the personal data; (iii) generate the dynamic CVV by executing an adaptive arithmetic-coding procedure that: (a) performs a first statistical manipulation on the secret key to define an alphabet, symbol probabilities, and a symbol order; (b) iteratively partitions a current interval according to the probabilities and symbol order to obtain a final sub-interval; and (c) selects a number from the final sub-interval as the dynamic CVV; (iv) transmit the dynamic CVV and the timestamp …; and (v) … independently calculate a server dynamic CVV from the same timestamp, initial code, and personal data and authenticate the transaction only upon a match, and replace the dynamic CVV with the static CVV for downstream clearing, thereby providing backward compatibility without changes …; (vi) wherein the dynamic CVV is activated only during a predefined validity window”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and/or “Mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations”, and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
19. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 15 such as “a computing system”, “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “a mobile application associated with a transaction card”, “the card”, “an authentication server” and “clearing systems” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “receive, by a mobile application associated with a transaction card, a request to generate a dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) code, the request including a timestamp and personal data associated with the card or cardholder” and “(iv) transmit the dynamic CVV and the timestamp to an authentication server” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of generating a number such as CVV code.
20. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of generating a number such as CVV code. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
21. Hence, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
22. Dependent claim 5 recites the additional element of “the computing system is implemented on a mobile telephone” which represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 6 recites the additional element of “the computing system is implemented on a personal computer” which represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein the initial code is the transaction card's static CVV or PIN code”.
Dependent claim 8 further describes the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein the timestamp has 16 digits”.
Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract ides of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein the dynamic CVV or PIN is any number in the last calculated interval”.
Dependent claim 10 further describes the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein the dynamic CVV or PIN is a predefined number in the last calculated interval (i.e. first, last, half, X %, random)”.
Dependent claim 11 further describes the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein step (vi) is repeated in correlation with the number of digits in the initial code”.
Dependent claim 12 further describes the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein execution of the instructions … further causes … to transmit … the generated dynamic CVV or PIN and the timestamp, wherein … is configured to generate a dynamic CVV or PIN, and to determine whether the authentication server dynamic CVV or PIN matches the transmitted the dynamic CVV or PIN”. The additional elements of “the at least one processor” and “an authentication server” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 14 further describes the abstract idea of generating a number such as CVV or a PIN code, as it recites “wherein a credit card transaction is authenticated after it is determined that authentication server dynamic generated CVV or PIN matches the transmitted the dynamic CVV …”. The additional element of “the computing system” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve another technology or technical field.
Conclusion
23. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
24. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
25. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New matter
26. Claim 15 recites “(v) at the authentication server … and authenticate the transaction only upon a match …”.
Applicant’s Specification (PGPub), para 70 recites “(x) having the authentication server calculate independently a server dynamic CVV based the received timestamp and personal data, and authenticate the received dynamic CVV only if matching the received dynamic CVV”, para 72 recites “… a user of a transaction card wishes to perform a transaction with a merchant 20…and provides the merchant 20 with a dynamic CVV issued by the application…”, para 73 recites “The merchant 20 then sends a transaction record of the financial transaction including the dynamic CVV received to the clearing server 30 … In the clearing server 30, the transaction record is received by an authentication module 40 of the invention that authenticates the dynamic CVV received. After validation of the dynamic CVV received, the authentication module 40 sends the transaction record to a clearing services module 50 after replacing the dynamic CVV with the original CVV associated with the transaction card”, and para 74 recites “The clearing services module 50 thus receives a transaction record for confirmation without being aware that the CVV has been swapped by the authentication module 40”. However, the Specification is silent that “the authentication server authenticates the transaction only upon a match”.
27. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
28. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
29. Claims 4-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lack of antecedent basis
30. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the probability” in paragraph starting with “(iv) performing …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
31. Claim 4 recites the limitation “said digit previously calculated” in paragraph starting with “(vi) performing …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no previous step that a digit was calculated.
32. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the last calculated interval” in paragraph starting with “(viii) selecting …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
33. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the card” in paragraph starting with “(i) receive …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “the transaction card”.
34. Claim 15 recites the limitations “the dynamic CVV” in paragraphs starting with “(iii) generate …”, “(c) selects…”, (iv) transmit…”, “(v) at the authentication…”, and “(iv) wherein…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “the dynamic CVV code”.
35. Claim 15 recites the limitations “the same timestamp” and “the static CVV” in paragraph starting with “(v) at the authentication…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Unclear scope
36. “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
37. Claim 15 recites “(v) at the authentication server, independently calculate a server dynamic CVV from the same timestamp, initial code, and personal data …”.
Previous limitation recites “(iv) transmit the dynamic CVV and the timestamp to an authentication server”, therefore it is not clear what “initial code” and “personal data” was used to “calculate a server dynamic CVV [code]” if only “the dynamic CVV” and “the timestamp” were transmitted to the “authentication server” on previous step.
38. “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” MPEP 2173.02 I.
39. Claims 5-12 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 because claims 5-12 and 14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 4 due to their dependency.
Conclusion
40. The following claim 4 limitations such as “performing a first statistical manipulation on the secret key based on the digits of the secret key (alphabet), the probability of occurrence of each digit in the secret key, the digits of the initial code and reordering the alphabet accordingly” and “partitioning an interval of the value of said digit, to sub-intervals based on the probabilities of occurrence of the digits in the reordered alphabet” were not taught by the prior art.
41. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20070136211A1 – Brown et al. – Discloses a payment card comprises an internal dynamic card verification value (CVV) generator and a user display for card-not-present transactions, wherein card-present transactions with merchant card readers are enabled by a dynamic magnetic array internally associated with the card's magnetic stripe.
US20200226608A1 – Muralidharan et al. – Discloses methods and systems for payment card transactions, where a Card Verification Value (CVV) or Card Verification Code (CVC) is generated dynamically as part of a tokenized session.
US20160217471A1 – Ashfield – Discloses a method and apparatus for using at least a portion of a one-time password as a dynamic card verification value (CVV) wherein a credit/debit card is able to generate a dynamic card verification value (CVV).
US20210326890A1 – Aravamudhan et al. – Discloses a system that directed to a temporal CVV2 of CVV, which may be represented as a temporary three digit number generated using unique credentials associated with a card product.
US20110225089A1 – Hammad – Discloses systems and methods for generating a dynamic verification value for electronic payment transactions wherein the dynamic verification value is generated via a function-based algorithm that accepts a plurality of security values as input.
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 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
April 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights