DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
1. This action is response to the Request for Continued Examination dated March 2, 2026.
2. Claims 1-24, 30, and 40 have been cancelled.
3. Claims 25-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are currently pending and have been examined.
4. Claims 25, 31, 35, and 41 have been amended.
5. Claims 45-46 are newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,343. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent 11,842,343 are drawn to the similar concepts for generating a one-time payment method by comparing data elements regarding the transaction received from the payer and payee and generating a single-use electronic payment number usable to paying the payee and thus the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the referenced patent.
Claims 25-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,342. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent 11,842,342 are drawn to the similar concepts for generating a one-time payment method by comparing data elements regarding the transaction received from the payer and payee and generating a single-use electronic payment number usable to paying the payee and thus the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the referenced patent.
Claims 25-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,592,900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US Patent 10,592,900 are drawn to the similar concepts for generating a one-time payment method by comparing data elements regarding the transaction received from the payer and payee and generating a single-use electronic payment number usable to paying the payee and thus the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the referenced patent.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
8. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 25 recites "[a] system for generating a one-time payment method between parties, comprising:”
The preamble of the instant claim 35 recites “[a] method for generating a one-time payment method between parties, comprising:”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for generating a one-time payment method between parties” as recited in the preambles of Claims 25 and 35 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Similarly in the instant case, the following italicized limitations are expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited and are not given weight:
Substantially similarly in Claims 25 and 35:
receiving, from a first device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payer, a request to pay a payee, wherein the request comprises a first set of data elements that includes a transaction amount;
generating an electronic representation of a virtual credit card that includes the single-use electronic purchase number, the expiration date, and the security code for display by the server application loaded on the second device, wherein the virtual credit card is limited to paying: the authenticated payee, in an amount equal to the transaction amount;”
As to substantially similar Claims 28 and 38:
Claims 28 and 38 recites “wherein the first and second authorization numbers further comprise a vehicle identification number”
Here, the claims are recited to be dependent on claims 27 and 37, which recite “the first set of data elements further comprise at least one of a first date of service, a first date of purchase, or a first authorization number; and the second set of data elements comprise at least one of a second date of service, a second date of purchase, a second authorization number, or the transaction amount”. Claims 27 and 37 only require one of the first set of data elements and one of the second set of data elements to fulfill the claim limitations. As such, in the wherein clause of claims 28 and 38, the claims reflect an optional claim as there is no requirement that claims 27 and 37 do indeed comprise a first or second authorization number. If the claims do not reflect a first or second authorization number, the process would stop at this juncture and fails to further limit the claims.
As to substantially similar Claims 29 and 39:
wherein the first set of data elements and the second set of data elements are received by a device associated with a payment processor.
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.
9. Claims 25-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 25 recites a system claim. Claim 35 recites a method claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 25 recites the abstract idea of generating a one-time payment method. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving, from a payer, a request to pay a payee, wherein the request comprises a first set of data elements that includes a transaction amount;
receiving, from a payee that has not established a payment method with the payer, a second set of data elements;
authenticating the payee by determining that the first set of data elements and the second set of data elements are associated with a transaction between the payer and the payee;
in response to the authentication of the payee, generating a single-use purchase number specific for the transaction between the payer and the payee that is usable as a credit card number, an expiration date, and a security code;
generating a representation of a virtual credit card that includes the single-use purchase number, the expiration date, and the security code for display, wherein the virtual credit card is limited to paying the authenticated payee, in an amount equal to the transaction amount;
sending the representation of the virtual credit card to the payee.
Claim 35 recites the abstract idea of generating a one-time payment method. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving, from a payer, a request to pay a payee, wherein the request comprises a first set of data elements that includes a transaction amount;
receiving, from a payee that has not established a payment method with the payer, a second set of data elements;
authenticating the payee by determining that the first set of data elements and the second set of data elements are associated with a transaction between the payer and the payee;
in response to authentication of the payee, generating a single-use purchase number specific for the transaction between the payer and the payee that is usable as a credit card number, an expiration date, and a security code;
generating a representation of a virtual credit card that includes the single-use purchase number, the expiration date, and the security code for display, wherein the virtual credit card is limited to paying the authenticated payee, in an amount equal to the transaction amount;
sending the representation of the virtual credit card to the payee.
The abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions including marketing or sales behaviors and/or business relations as well as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., receiving, from a payer, a request to pay a payee, wherein the request comprises a first set of data elements that includes a transaction amount; receiving, from a payee that has not established a payment method with the payer, a second set of data elements; authenticating the payee by determining that the first set of data elements and the second set of data elements are associated with a transaction between the payer and the payee; in response to the authentication of the payee, generating a single-use purchase number specific for the transaction between the payer and the payee that is usable as a credit card number, an expiration date, and a security code; generating a representation of a virtual credit card that includes the single-use purchase number, the expiration date, and the security code for display, wherein the virtual credit card is limited to paying the authenticated payee, in an amount equal to the transaction amount; sending the representation of the virtual credit card to the payee.) (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 25 recites a non-transitory memory storing instructions associated with a server application, a hardware processor that executes the instructions, a first device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payer, a second device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payee, a network and further that the purchase number is “electronic”
Claim 35 recites a first device having the server application installed thereon associated with a payer, a second device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payee, a network and further that the purchase number is “electronic”.
The claims only recite a non-transitory memory storing instructions associated with a server application, a hardware processor that executes the instructions, a first device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payer, a second device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payee, a network and an indication that the purchase number is “electronic” which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 25 and 35 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) 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., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) 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). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) 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); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (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); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“Components described below relate to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution. For example, components may be, but are not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an object, an executable instruction, a thread of execution, a program, and/or a computer. By way of illustration, both an application running on a computer and the computer may be a component. One or more components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution and a component may be localized on one computer and/or distributed between two or more computers.” (See Applicant Spec para 20)
“With reference to Fig. 1, the following description relates to a system 100 that includes one or more computing devices 110 and a server 112. Each computing device 110 may comprise any suitable device, examples of which include a desktop computing device, a portable computing device, such as a tablet or laptop, a portable phone (e.g., a cell phone or the like, a smart phone, a video phone), a landline phone, or a combination thereof. Devices 110 may be configured to transmit data between each other via a data network 114. The data network 114 may comprise any public or private data network, including the Internet or an intranet. System 100 may also be implemented using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system which would communicate over the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).” (See Applicant Spec para 21)
“With reference now to Fig. 2, each device 110 comprises a processor 116, a memory 119, a network interface 120, and a user input interface 122 that includes a pointing device 124 (such as a mouse, trackball, or touch pad) and keyboard 126. Device 110 also includes a monitor 128 that includes a display 130. Display 130 is configured to show a user interface, such as the interfaces depicted in Figs. 4, 5, 7 and 9. Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, or the like. These and other input devices may be connected to the processor 116 through the user input interface 122 that is coupled to system bus 156, but may be connected by other interface and/or bus structures, such as a parallel port, game port, or a universal serial bus (USB) for example.” (See Applicant Spec para 24)
“The user input interface 122 of device 10 may provide the ability to control the device 110, via, for example, buttons, soft keys, voice actuated controls, a touch screen, movement of the device 110, visual cues, (e.g., moving a hand in front of a camera on the device 110), or the like. The device 110 may provide visual information (e.g., via display 130), audio information (e.g., via a speaker), mechanically (e.g., via a vibrating mechanism), or a combination thereof. The device 110 may comprise means for inputting biometric information such as, for example, fingerprint information, retinal information, voice information, and/or facial characteristic information. The device 110, such as a smart phone or tablet, may also communicate with an application store via data network 114.” (See Applicant Spec para 25)
“Memory 118 may include computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory (ROM) 132 and random access memory (RAM) 134. A basic input/output system 136 (BIOS), containing the basic routines that help to transfer information between elements within device 110, such as during start-up, may be stored in ROM 132. RAM 134 may contain data and/or program modules that are immediately accessible to and/or presently being operated on by processor 116. By way of example, Fig. 2 illustrates an operating system 138, application programs 140, other program modules 142, and program data 144. As a further example, video content (e.g., video frames) and/or metadata (e.g., closed caption date) may be stored in the system memory 118, as well as in any of a variety of non-volatile memory media discussed herein.” (See Applicant Spec para 26)
“System 100 may include an application 200, which is installed on a device 110, such as a device at a supplier 102, a payer 104, or a payment processor 106. The application 200 may comprise computer-executable instructions, or program code, stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium within the device 110. The computer-executable instructions of the application 200, when executed by the processor 116 of the device 110, cause the device 110 to perform various authentication functions such as those described in relation to the processes shown in Fig. 3 and 6. The application 200 may be loaded onto the device 110 either through a wired or wireless connection, such as via a download from a remote storage location, like a service hosting a site with multiple applications.” (See Applicant Spec para 29)
“As is apparent from the embodiments described herein, all or portions of the various systems, methods, and aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied in hardware, software, or combination of both. When embodied in software, the systems and methods of the present disclosure, or certain aspects or portions thereof, may be embodied in the form of program code (i.e., computer executable instructions). This program code may be stored on a computer-readable storage medium, such as the various computer-readable storage media described above, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer or server, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the disclosure. The program code may be implemented in a high level procedural or object oriented programming language. Alternatively, the program code may be implemented in an assembly or machine language. In any case, the language may be a compiled or interpreted language. When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the program code may combine with the processor to provide a unique apparatus that operates analogously to specific logic circuits.” (See Applicant Spec para 54)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The functions performed by the computer of each step of the process are purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, processing, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval. The computer functions of receiving data are generic, routine and conventional computer activities. The claims are not describing any activities in an unconventional manner. Each step requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 25 and 35 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 26-29, 31-34, 36-39 and 41-46 further define the abstract idea that is presented in respective Independent claims 25 and 35 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Dependent Claims 29 and 39 additionally recite a device associated with a payment processor. Dependent Claim 46 further recites a server architecture of Software as a Service (SaaS).
The additional elements of a payment processor and a server architecture of Software as a Service (SaaS) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Thus, Claims 25-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
Bresnan et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0006253) (“Bresnan”) – discloses a method for flexible automated comparison of a biller’s data with the business customer’s data via the EBPP system that is in place between the two. (See Bresnan Abstract) The biller presents an electronic statement to the customer based on the first set of customer billing data. (See Bresnan Abstract) The customer selects one or more of the invoices for comparison and billing data fields to perform comparison on. (See Bresnan Abstract) The invention provides a way to identify differences between the two sets of data. (See Bresnan para 5)
Walker et al. (US Patent 6,163,771) – discloses a device for facilitating credit transactions which includes a processing unit including a cryptographic processor. (See Walker Col. 4, lines 5-8) The device also includes an input unit connected to the processing unit for inputting information thereto, and a display unit connected to the processing unit for displaying a processing result. (See Walker Col. 4, lines 8-11) In accordance with the program, the processing unit encrypts the first data element using the private cryptographic key and the second data element, modifies the second data element, combines the encrypted first data element and the second data element to generate a single-use financial account identifier, and displays the single-use financial account identifier using the display unit. (See Walker Col. 4, lines 15-21) The number is unique for the specific input variables set by the cardholder or by the device and may also be unique to the specific data and time to avoid so-called “replay” attacks for that card at that merchant with that exact purchase amount. (See Walker Col. 6, lines 30-36) The single-use credit card number is preferably a 16-digit number that can be recognized as a conventional credit card number. (See Walker Col. 6, lines 35-38)
Barlok et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0188715) (“Barlok”) – discloses systems and methods that receive one or more images and based at least in part on the received images identify information associated with a bill and information associated with a mode of payment and, based at least in part on the information associated with the bill and information associated with the mode of payment, effectuate a financial transaction. (See Barlok Abstract) Barlok further discloses systems and methods that receive one or more images and based at least in part on the received images identify information associated with a bill and information associated with a mode of payment and based at least in part on the information associated with the bill and mode of payment, effectuate a financial transaction. (See Barlok para 15) The user device may be further configured to transmit the bill image to a payment system for image processing and determination of one or more bill data elements.(See Barlok para 16)
In one aspect, the payment system may be configured to receive a bill image of a bill or portion thereof and from the image, be able to extract bill data elements. (See Barlok para 44) The payment system may also be configured to receive a payment instrument or a portion thereof and be configured to extract payment instrument data including identification of a financial account number, an expiration date and a card verification value, etc., or combinations thereof. (See Barlok paras 44, 92)
The user device may determine one or more approved bill data elements and transmit them to the payment system. (See Barlok para 52) Barlok further discloses that a payment instrument image of a payment instrument may be captured or accessed from memory. (See Barlok para 53) Further, the payment instrument image may be captured or received and may be transmitted to the payment system. (See Barlok paras 68-69)
Hopkins (US Patent 8,025,226) (“Hopkins”) - discloses a vehicle identification card that includes the insured’s vehicle VIN and other vehicle information and may include account information that allows the card to be used like a credit card. (See Hopkins Abstract) Further, Hopkins discloses that the database management module may determine at least one credit transaction was related to the vehicle by comparing the VIN number of the vehicle identification card stored in a user account maintained by a database to the VIN number of the car identified by the vehicle identification card and the module may generate one or more packets of information including a notification for the user. (See Hopkins Col. 12, lines 50-62)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 2, 2026 have been considered and are persuasive in part as fully disclosed below.
Regarding the 101 Rejections:
Applicant disagrees that the claims are drawn to a judicial exception without practical application or significantly more. (See Applicant Arguments dated 01/20/2026, page 10)
Applicant acknowledges the Office’s position that the claims recite the abstract idea of generating a one-time payment, however asserts that as amended, the independent claims are not directed to any abstract idea and are subject matter patent eligible when considered as a whole arguing that the amendments integrate the claim into a practical application. (Id. at page 11)
Applicant argues that the pending claims present additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Id.) Applicant notes that independent claim 25 recites a system for generating a one-time payment method between parties, comprising a hardware processor that executes instructions to perform a series of steps. (Id. at pages 11-12) Applicant argues that the current claim 25 are reciting specific steps that accomplish results that specifically link the alleged abstract idea of generating a one-time payment to a particular technological environment, namely, providing a payee that has not established a payment method with a payer with a virtual credit card limited to a specific payee and to a specific amount equal to the transaction amount thereby minimizing security risks associated with delivering credit card information to the supplier. (Id. at pages 12-13)
Examiner disagrees. The claims are effectuating instructions using systemization at a high level.
This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that like the claims at issue in Ex Parte Smith, the instant claims should also be subject matter patent eligible. (Id. at pages 13-14) Each application turns on its own specification and claims and lacks general applicability. Further, while Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, Examiner is of another opinion. The claims are following instructions that hardware, recited at a high level, has been instructed to carry out.
Applicant then argues that the claims recite “significantly more”. (Id. at pages 14-17) Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional and attempts to argue that the claims are like those seen in BASCOM. (Id. at page 15) Applicant appears to argue that the claims provide a specific, discrete and interconnected implementation that addresses the technical problem of secure, transaction-specific payment for unregistered payees. (Id. at pages 16-17) Examiner disagrees. The steps are being recited at a high level of generality and still require each of the devices involved to be running the server application and authentication – this does not appear to be addressing a technical problem, rather it appears to be utilizing computing devices for their intended use – namely to follow the directions they are given. This is not a persuasive argument.
As to the dependent claims, Applicant argues that the dependent claims have not been
analyzed. (Id. at pages 17-18) This is not the case. The claims have been examined separately and where there is additional systemization noted, it has now been noted in the 101 rejection. By way of example, Applicant argues that the first and second authorization numbers further comprise a VIN. (Id. at page 18) An authorization number is data. The use of a VIN, which is a fixed piece of information on a vehicle, is still data, not a technological element. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 103 Rejections:
As currently amended, there is no prior art rejection being applied. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 01/20/2026, pages 18-21)
Regarding the Double Patenting Rejections:
Applicant traverses the double patenting rejections of record and asserts that the claims are patentably distinct from the ‘343, ‘342 and ‘900 patents and allege that they do not render obvious or recite “receiving from a first device having the server application installed thereon and associated with a payer, a request to pay a payee, the request comprises a first set of data elements that include a transaction amount,” “receiving, from a second device having the server application installed thereon…”;“authenticating the payee” and “in response to authentication of the payee, generating a single-use electronic purchase number specific for the transaction between the payer and the payee that is usable as a credit card number, an expiration date, and a security code”; “generating an electronic representation of a virtual credit card that includes the single-use electronic purchase number, the expiration date, and the security code for display by the server application loaded on the second device, wherein the virtual credit card is limited to paying, in an amount equal to the transaction amount”; “sending, via a network, the electronic representation of the virtual credit card to the payee (Id. at pages 21-25)
Examiner disagrees.
US Patent 11,842,343 at least directly recites receiving a first set of first data elements associated with a transaction from a payer via a first device, including a transaction amount; receiving a set of second data elements associated with a transaction with a payee that is not pre-registered to receive payments via a second device, determining based on a comparison of the first set to the second set, that a first data element matches a second data element and in response to the determining, generating a single-use electronic payment number that is usable as a payment credit card number, the electronic payment number being limited to paying the payee in an amount equal to the transaction amount in Claim 1.
US Patent 11,842,342 at least directly recites receiving a first set of data elements from a payer including a transaction amount; authenticating the payee and in response to the authenticating, generating a single-use electronic purchase number that is usable as a credit card number and limited to paying the authenticated payee in an amount equal to the transaction amount.
US Patent 10,592,900 at least directly recites receiving a first set of specific data elements from a payer associated with an invoice that includes at least two of: a first date of service or purchase, a first authorization number and a first cost as well as generating via a computing device, a single-use electronic purchase number…wherein the single-use electronic purchase number is usable as a credit card number for paying an amount associated with the invoice.
In each instance, the instant claims are anticipated by the prior patents. The double patenting rejections are maintained
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 March 7, 2026