Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
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 23, 27-30, 34-37, 41-48 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.
Claim 23 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 23 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: parsing a captured payment card number to extract a bank identification number (BIN) and determining, based on the BIN, an issuer financial institution associated with the captured payment card number / transmitting a request for additional payment card numbers related to the captured payment card number / receiving one or more additional payment car numbers related to the captured payment card number / the globally unique identifier links the captured payment card number and the one or more additional payment card numbers / generating a globally unique identifier based on a payment card number, a cardholder identified associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign / generating an electronic content distribution message associated with the electronic content distribution campaign, the electronic content distribution message having a customized hyperlink including the globally unique identifier appended to a uniform resource locator (URL)/ transmitting and using the globally unique identifier in the customized hyperlink, the electronic content distribution message to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier / in response to the generated electronic content distribution message including the customized hyperlink being transmitted to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier, capturing interaction data indicative of a selection of the customized hyperlink by the user account/ receiving a payment card number associated with a purchase transaction, wherein the authorization request is routed , and the cardholder identifier /
attributing the purchase transaction to the electronic content distribution campaign in response to determining that the payment card number associated with the purchase transaction matches one of the captured payment card number or the one or more additional payment card numbers linked by the globally unique identifier/ associating the captured interaction data with the globally unique identifier / storing the captured interaction data of a user’s interaction with the customized hyperlink . The Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “relate, in general, to the field of purchase transactions”, “attributing purchase transactions to electronic marketing campaigns”, “it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events”, “The targeted marketing campaign can include one or more products being advertised. A product identifier can be associated with each product being advertised via the targeted marketing campaign”, “With specific regard to Internet-based or electronic marketing, it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events, especially when those purchase events occur through different sales channels or occur subsequent to a consumer's initial exposure to marketing communications”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: generating a globally unique identifier based on the captured payment card number, a cardholder identifier associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 23 includes the additional element of a server/ processor / user device/ data storage/ acquirer processor including a server / payment processing server of the acquirer processor / merchant POS device / payment network, which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Capturing data and redirecting via a hyperlink (‘wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Capturing data and redirecting via a hyperlink (‘wherein selection of the customized hyperlink directs the user device to a location of the customized hyperlink’) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 23 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 30, 37 are directed to a server and computer readable medium for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 23, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 23. The claims perform the claimed steps using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 30, 37 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 23.
Remaining dependent claims 27-29, 34-36, 41-48 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further include the additional elements of a point of sale device, which represents a generic computing element; it is recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art: The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of pending claims 23, 27-30, 34-37, 41-48. The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is Fordyce (20120109734). It teaches matching transaction profile data and user data characteristics, including receiving first user data associated with first user identifiers used by a first user tracker to track first online activities of users; receiving, second user data associated with second online activities of respective first account identifiers that uniquely identify accounts in a transaction handler; and matching, the first user data with the second user data to identify mapping between the first user identifiers and the first account identifiers. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. The second most relevant prior art identified is Winner (20120209672). It teaches tracking user conversions including online and offline transactions; it teaches identifying an online offer accepted by a customer; receiving a set of transactions executed at a merchant; parsing the set of transactions to determine that a set of criteria associated with the online offer has been satisfied by the customer via one or more transactions at the merchant; and notifying the merchant that the online offer has been satisfied by the customer. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, and 39-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant traverses the rejection at least because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Moreover, Applicant submits that, even assuming (without conceding) that the claims might include an abstract idea, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and the claims recite significantly more than any such abstract idea. This is at least because the present claims are directed to generating a globally unique identifier linking multiple payment card numbers associated with the same account so that separate computing systems can correlate transaction records that otherwise would remain disconnected. (Spec. at [0018].)
Step 2A(1): The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The Office Action asserts that the claims are allegedly directed to certain
methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions. (Office Action at p. 2.) Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As a preliminary matter, the Federal Circuit has explained that "[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas," and has cautioned "to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law." MPEP 2106.04; See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The 'directed to' inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon.") As such, there is a key distinction between claims directed to an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis). Id. The Action seemingly confuses this concept: it mistakes the indirect presence of an exception (e.g., e-Commerce transactions) as indicating that the claims are, as a whole, directed to the exception. This is simply not the case. The present claims merely involve commercial interactions, but are not directed to commercial interactions. Rather, the claims are directed to an improved technique for correlating transaction records generated under different payment card identifiers. (See Spec. at [0017]-[0018].)
The Examiner's characterization of the claims as being directed to an abstract idea fails to account for the specific technological problem addressed by the claimed invention and the particular technological solution recited in the claims. In determining patent eligibility, the relevant inquiry is whether the claims improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int', 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014). Here, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computerized payment-processing systems and electronic transaction attribution technologies.
Hence, the claims are not in any way directed to commercial interactions. While the claims might at some level of attenuation be argued to be related to advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, the claims are clear in that they relate to generating a globally unique identifier linking multiple payment card numbers associated with the same account so that separate computing systems can correlate transaction records that otherwise would remain disconnected.
Accordingly, the claims are not in any direct directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A(2): The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Even if claim 1 recites a judicial exception (a point Applicant does not concede), the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (e.g., Step 2A, Prong Two). MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(a), 2106.04(d). Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claim recites additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) ("[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.") The claim elements recite improvements to the technical field of field of correlating data across disparate databases, that otherwise would remain disconnected.
Conventional payment-processing systems generate and store transaction data using payment card numbers as identifiers. However, a single consumer account may be associated with multiple payment card numbers over time due to card reissuance, expiration, replacement, tokenization, or account updates. As a result, distributed payment-processing systems are unable to recognize that transaction records associated with different payment card numbers correspond to the same underlying
account. This causes transaction events generated by separate computing systems to remain fragmented across multiple records, preventing reliable correlation, retrieval, and processing related transaction data. See Spec. [0018].
As described in the Specification, conventional consumer-tracking systems suffer from a technical deficiency arising from the architecture of distributed computing environments. Specifically, consumer interaction data generated through online activity is typically maintained separately from payment transaction data generated during subsequent purchase events. As a result, when a consumer later completes a purchase using a different payment card number associated with the same payment account, conventional systems are unable to reliably correlate the online interaction data with the resulting transaction data. The Specification explains that this disconnect prevents accurate attribution of online activity to subsequent purchase events because the various systems involved in generating, storing, and processing transaction information utilize different identifiers and operate independently of one another. (See Specification at [0017]-[0018].) Thus, the problem addressed by the claims is not a business problem, but rather a technological problem arising from the inability of distributed payment-processing systems to correlate related transaction records generated across separate computing platforms.
The amended claims provide a specific technological solution to this technical
problem. In particular, the claims recite "parsing, by an electronic transaction attribution server of an acquirer processor, a captured payment card number to extract a bank identification number (BIN) and determining, based on the BIN, an issuer financial institution associated with the captured payment card number," "transmitting, by the
electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor and to the issuer financial institution, a request for additional payment card numbers related to the captured payment card number," "receiving, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor and from the issuer financial institution, one or more additional payment card numbers related to the captured payment card number," "generating, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor, a globally unique identifier based on the captured payment card number, a cardholder identifier associated with a user, and a merchant sponsoring the targeted electronic content distribution campaign, wherein a different globally unique identifier is generated for each merchant sponsoring an electronic content distribution campaign, and wherein the globally unique identifier links the captured payment card number and the one or more additional payment card numbers," "transmitting, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor and using the globally unique identifier in the customized hyperlink, the electronic content distribution message to a user account associated with the cardholder identifier," "storing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor, the captured interaction data of a user's interaction with the customized hyperlink in a data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server," "associating, the captured interaction data with the globally unique identifier in the data storage of the electronic transaction attribution server," and "attributing, by the electronic transaction attribution server of the acquirer processor, the purchase transaction to the electronic content distribution campaign in response to determining that the payment card number associated with the purchase transaction matches one of the captured payment card number or the one or more additional payment card numbers linked by the globally unique identifier." Through these operations, the claimed invention creates a technical linkage among multiple payment card numbers associated with the same underlying payment account, thereby enabling disparate computing systems to recognize and correlate transaction events that otherwise would remain disconnected. Additionally, the globally unique identifier reduces duplicate storage and repeated network lookups by permitting a single identifier to represent multiple related payment card numbers associated with the same account relationship. Hence, the claimed technical solution provides for improved data management and reduced network processing.
Importantly, the claims do not merely collect information and analyze it. Rather, the claims recite a particularized implementation that modifies the manner in which electronic transaction information is organized, linked, and processed across payment- network infrastructure. The globally unique identifier generated by the claimed system functions as a technical mechanism for correlating transaction records generated by separate systems that would otherwise employ unrelated payment card identifiers. The claimed invention therefore improves the operation of electronic payment-processing systems by enabling reliable cross-platform transaction attribution that was not previously achievable using conventional identifier structures.
Like the claims found patent-eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the present claims improve the manner in which data is organized and utilized by computerized systems. Likewise, similar to Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claims employ a specific technological mechanism (e.g., the generation and use of a globally
unique identifier linked to multiple payment card numbers) to improve the functioning of existing computer-network infrastructure. The claims therefore are directed to a technological improvement in electronic payment-processing systems rather than to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims recite additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting improvements to the technological problem arising from the inability of distributed payment-processing systems to correlate related transaction records generated across separate computing platforms.
Step 2B: The Claims Add Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
Even if the present claims were directed to an abstract idea, and even if the
present claims did not recite a practical application of any such abstract idea (neither of which Applicant concedes), the claims amount to significantly more than any such abstract idea and are therefore directed to patent-eligible subject matter in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Courts "have found that additional elements are more than 'apply it' or [sic] are not 'mere instructions' when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem." MPEP § 2106.05(f). "An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing to McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016); D.D.R. Holdings, L.L.C. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
The claims are directed to a particular technological solution to a specific
problem arising in distributed payment-processing systems, rather than merely claiming the desired result of correlating transaction data. As discussed above, conventional payment-processing architectures are unable to reliably associate transaction records generated under different payment card numbers corresponding to the same underlying account because the various systems operate using disparate identifiers and separate data stores.
The claims do not simply recite the concept of linking related transactions or attributing consumer activity to purchase events. Instead, the claims recite a specific sequence of technical operations for accomplishing that result, including parsing a captured payment card number to extract a bank identification number (BIN), determining an issuer financial institution associated with the payment card number, transmitting a request to the issuer financial institution for additional payment card numbers related to the captured payment card number, receiving the additional payment card numbers, generating a globally unique identifier linking the captured payment card number and the additional payment card numbers, and subsequently utilizing the globally unique identifier in connection with payment transaction data received through a payment network. These claim elements define a particular mechanism for creating and maintaining a linkage among otherwise unrelated payment card identifiers. Accordingly, the claims do not merely recite the idea of correlating transaction records or improving transaction attribution; rather, they recite a specific
technical implementation that achieves those results through particularized interactions with payment-network infrastructure and issuer systems.
Based on the foregoing, claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, and 39-42 are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. III. New Claims
New claims 43-48 depend from one of independent claims 23, 30, and 37, and thus are allowable for at least the reasons provided above with respect to independent claims 23, 30, and 37.
When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, and has also taken the recent Memorandum on § 101 into consideration. The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination , integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above.
The Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the pending claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “relate, in general, to the field of purchase transactions”, “attributing purchase transactions to electronic marketing campaigns”, “it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events”, “The targeted marketing campaign can include one or more products being advertised. A product identifier can be associated with each product being advertised via the targeted marketing campaign”, “With specific regard to Internet-based or electronic marketing, it is often difficult for these companies to correlate advertising and marketing expenditures to subsequent purchase events, especially when those purchase events occur through different sales channels or occur subsequent to a consumer's initial exposure to marketing communications”.
The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra).
The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. , including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the pending claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights