Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to arguments received 06/25/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 being independent claims have also been amended herein; claims 5 and 13 cancelled; claims 23-24 are newly added and claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19 and 21-24 are dependent claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 19-22, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026, with respect to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, see pages 13-18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A: Prong One, Applicant argues that the Examiner has overgeneralized the claims by characterizing them as directed to a commercial interaction and failing to account for the amended limitations requiring first and second blockchain data entries transmitted to respective first and second blockchains, wherein the first blockchain is accessible by an issuer system to identify the primary payment details based on a link between the primary and dynamic payment details, while the second blockchain is accessible by a merchant system to verify the dynamic payment details without access to the primary payment details. Applicant further argues that this constitutes a specific selective-disclosure architecture for dynamic payment cards rather than an abstract commercial practice. These arguments are not persuasive.
The amended claims have been considered as a whole. Nevertheless, the claims continue to recite the collection, identification, organization, and communication of payment information for conducting a payment transaction. More particularly, the claims recite receiving transaction information, identifying dynamic payment information, generating records containing selected transaction and payment information, and transmitting the respective records so that different participants in the payment transaction have access to selected payment information. These limitations describe the management and exchange of payment information among participants in a commercial transaction and therefore continue to recite a commercial interaction falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas.
The additional specificity concerning which payment information is included in each blockchain data entry and which transaction participant is permitted access does not remove the recited commercial interaction from the abstract idea grouping. The claimed separation of primary and dynamic payment details determines what payment information is made available to the merchant and issuer in carrying out the transaction. Thus, the amended limitations further specify the manner in which information associated with the payment transaction is organized and made available to the respective transaction participants.
Newly added claims 23-24 likewise do not alter this conclusion. These claims further recite receiving an authorization request from the merchant system, generating a routing of the authorization request to the issuer system based on the dynamic payment details, transmitting the request to the issuer system, receiving an authorization response, and transmitting the response to the merchant system. These limitations further specify the processing and routing of a payment authorization request among the merchant, payment network, and issuer and therefore further refine the underlying commercial payment interaction.
With respect to Step 2A: Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the amended limitations allegedly provide a technological improvement to dynamic payment card processing, consumer confidentiality, and security through a selective-disclosure dual-blockchain architecture. Applicant relies upon Enfish and McRO and argues that the claims change how transaction data is stored, accessed, and resolved across the payment ecosystem. These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
The Examiner has considered the claims as a whole, including the ordered combination of the processing server, dynamic payment details, first and second blockchain data entries, respective first and second blockchains, issuer and merchant access limitations, and, for claims 23-24, the payment network and authorization-routing limitations. However, the claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the blockchain technology, payment network, processing server, dynamic payment card, or other technology or computer functionality itself. Rather, these technological components are used to implement restrictions governing which transaction participant receives or accesses particular payment information during a payment transaction.
In particular, the first blockchain provides the issuer access to information sufficient to identify the primary payment details based on the relationship between the primary and dynamic payment details, while the second blockchain permits the merchant to verify the dynamic payment details without access to the primary payment details. Although this arrangement may restrict disclosure of particular payment information to different transaction participants, the claims do not recite an improvement in the manner in which a blockchain stores or retrieves data, reaches consensus, communicates between nodes, or otherwise operates as blockchain technology. Rather, the blockchains are used as technological tools for implementing the claimed allocation and accessibility of payment information.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish, is therefore not persuasive. In Enfish, the claimed self-referential table constituted an improvement to the way a computer database stored and retrieved data. Here, the amended claims do not recite a new or improved blockchain data structure or an improvement in computer data-storage functionality itself. Instead, the claims use respective blockchain records to control which payment information is available to different participants in the transaction. The alleged improvement therefore concerns the use and accessibility of payment information in conducting the financial transaction rather than an improvement to the operation of the underlying computer or blockchain technology.
Applicant’s reliance on McRO is likewise not persuasive. McRO involved specific rules that improved an existing technological process. Here, the claims do not recite comparable technological rules or algorithms that improve the operation of blockchain, payment network, or computer technology. The recited generation and transmission of different blockchain entries according to the payment information to be made available to the issuer and merchant instead applies the underlying payment information management scheme using the recited computer and blockchain environment.
Applicant additionally argues that the architecture provides practical benefits because a merchant does not receive the consumer’s primary payment details, the issuer can identify the underlying account, and the arrangement can operate over existing payment infrastructure. These asserted benefits have been considered. However, the claimed result of limiting disclosure of payment information to particular transaction participants concerns the privacy and accessibility of information used in the payment transaction. The claims do not recite a corresponding improvement in the operation of the computer, blockchain, payment network, or other technology through which that result is achieved.
With respect to claims 23-24, the additionally recited payment network does not alter this conclusion. The payment network receives an authorization request, determines routing based on the dynamic payment details, transmits the authorization request to the issuer, receives the issuer’s response, and transmits the response to the merchant. These limitations use the payment network to carry out the payment authorization process, but do not recite an improvement to the operation of the payment network itself. Accordingly, when considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of the independent claims, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to arguments under Step 2B, Applicant relies on BASCOM and argues that, even assuming the individual components are known, an inventive concept exists in the ordered combination of separating primary and dynamic payment details across differently accessible blockchains and routing an authorization request through a payment network using the dynamic payment details. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Unlike the particular arrangement at issue in BASCOM, the claimed ordered combination does not recite a technological arrangement that improves the functioning of the computer network or its components. Rather, the processing server, blockchain records, respective blockchains, merchant and issuer systems, and payment network are arranged to implement the underlying payment information access and authorization scheme. The alleged inventive concept therefore resides in the manner in which payment information is divided, made accessible to different transaction participants, and used to route and authorize the payment transaction, rather than in an improvement to the operation of the underlying technological components.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not transform the abstract payment activity into patent-eligible subject matter or provide an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding BASCOM do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the additional limitations of the dependent claims have also been considered. The additional limitations concerning authorization messaging, communication with computing devices, private or permissioned blockchain access, temporal metadata, transmission of payment information to an issuing financial institution, restrictions on dynamic card number usage, and merchant specific dynamic payment details further limit the manner in which the payment transaction and associated information are implemented, but do not recite an improvement to the operation of the underlying computer, blockchain, payment network, or other technology. Considered individually and in combination with the limitations of the respective independent claims, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1 & 17 are directed to a process and claims 9 and 20 are directed to system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for conducting a payment transaction, including receiving transaction information, identifying primary and dynamic payment information associated with the transaction, generating records containing selected transaction and payment information, and communicating the respective records so that selected payment information is available to respective participants in the payment transaction. These limitations, when considered together, recite the management and exchange of payment information among participants in a commercial transaction, which is a commercial interaction, i.e. sales activities or behaviors, and thus falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, excluding the additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows:
receiving transaction details for a proposed payment transaction, including primary payment details;
identifying a transaction identifier and dynamic payment details;
generating first and second records containing selected transaction and payment information; and
transmitting the respective records.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim elements that takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Newly added claims 23-24 further recite receiving an authorization request for a proposed payment transaction, generating a routing of the authorization request to an issuer system based on dynamic payment details, transmitting the routed authorization request to the issuer system, receiving an authorization response from the issuer system, and transmitting the authorization response to the merchant system. These limitations further refine the commercial interaction recited by the independent claims by specifying the processing and routing of a payment authorization request between a merchant system, payment network, and issuer system. Accordingly, these limitations remain within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, specifically commercial interactions involving sales and payment activities.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements include the processing server and associated receiver, processor, and transmitter, the first and second blockchain data entries and respective first and second blockchains, and the limitations providing that the first blockchain is accessible by an issuer system to identify the primary payment details based on a link between the primary and dynamic payment details while the second blockchain is accessible by a merchant system to verify the dynamic payment details without access to the primary payment details. Considered individually and in combination with the recited abstract idea, these additional elements use the processing server and respective blockchains to implement the claimed allocation and accessibility of payment information among participants in the payment transaction. The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the processing server or blockchain technology itself, such as an improvement to blockchain data storage or retrieval, consensus, node communication, or other computer functionality. Rather, the additional elements apply the recited payment information management scheme using the processing server and blockchain environment to control which payment information is accessible to the issuer and merchant. Accordingly, when the claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations of claims 23-24 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claims additionally recite a payment network in communication with the processing server and require the payment network to generate a routing of an authorization request to an issuer system based on the dynamic payment details, the claims do not recite a technological improvement to the operation of the payment network, processing server, blockchain, or other computer functionality. Rather, the payment network is used as a tool to implement the underlying payment authorization process by receiving transaction information, determining where the authorization request is to be routed based on the dynamic payment details, transmitting the request, receiving a response, and transmitting the response to the merchant. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 9, these additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the step for receiving transaction details and transmitting blockchain data are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea do not provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 are not patent eligible.
With respect to newly added claims 23-24, the additionally recited payment network and the functions of receiving the authorization request, generating a routing based on the dynamic payment details, transmitting the routed authorization request, receiving the authorization response, and transmitting the response, when considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations use the payment network to carry out the payment authorization process and do not recite an inventive concept or other additional elements that, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 23-24 do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of without significantly more. The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole an in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for generating and transmitting blockchain data entry including at least a transaction identifier, primary payment details, dynamic payment details, and transaction amount) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instructions to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for generating and transmitting blockchain data entry including at least a transaction identifier, primary payment details, dynamic payment details, and transaction amount) using generic computer components in a particular technological environment.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim it depends on, and the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. All the limitations of the dependent claims further refine the abstract idea without significantly more.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that 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 or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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 Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights