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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 September 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 4, 6 and 8. Claims 9-11 have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-3 were canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 4-11 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 05 September 2025 with respect to:
rejections of claims 4-8 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 4-8 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 4, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dill et al (US Pub. 20150032627 A1) in view of Lingappa (US Pub. No. 20150371224 A1), and
rejections of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dill in view of Lingappa, in further view of Nagasundaram et al (US Pub. No. 20150112870 A1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections. However, amendments are not totally effective. See revised claim objections and § 112(b) rejections below.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility in that claim 4 is not directed to an abstract idea, but instead recites “a targeted method for recording and transferring monetary value which does not fall under any of the categories for abstract ideas” i.e. Step 2A – Prong One, and “Additionally or alternatively, claim 4 incorporates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application” i.e. Step 2A – Prong Two [remarks page 7]. Examiner respectfully disagrees in part.
Examiner revises analysis in that the claim is directed to abstract ideas of mitigating risk as well as commercial interactions which are method of organizing human activities. Applicant’s contention that the claim provides “fraudulent electronic transactions may be reduced” [remarks page 7] is further evidence that the claim is directed to mitigating risk.
Applicant position that the claims are integrated into a practical application of a judicial exception in that “the electronic record is updated to show that a first party has ownership of a unique identifier” [remarks page 7] is not substantive because it is not a technological improvement.
In view of Prong Two of Step 2A– i.e. practical application to a judicial exception – limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a),
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo,
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b),
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c),
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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not contain any of these aforementioned limitations.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f),
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g),
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as discussed in the revised § 101 rejections contained herein.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 4-8 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Dill uses the words ‘token value’ to refer to the alphanumeric value that the token consists of (i.e. "ABC123"), not the monetary value that the token represents” [remarks page 8]. Examiner respectfully disagrees in as much as Dill discloses:
[0011] …The network token system provides a platform that can be leveraged by various entities such as third party wallet providers, merchants, acquirers, payment processors, etc. that use tokens to facilitate payment transactions (emphasis added).
Rejections of claims 4-8 have been updated in view of the amended claim language.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to new claims 9-11 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application filed 26 January 2024 is a continuation of 17/011,541 filed 03 September 2020 and is now US Patent No. 11,887,075. Application 17/011,541 is a continuation of 15/149,229 filed 09 May 2016 and is now US Patent No. 10,769,599. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 09 May 2016.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 4-11, clauses such as “wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank” in claim 4 and “of potential fraud involving the first party or the second party” in claim 8 are merely statements of intended use which do not affect the method step of “accepting/ rejecting the unique identifier” or “transferring ownership”. Similar phrasing will be interpreted accordingly.
A recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
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, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" clauses, or
(D) "whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
The wherein clause of claims 4-8 do not in any way effect the method steps performed in independent claim 1. For example, in claim 4:
wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank
further describe a contract. As such, such clauses are merely non-functional descriptive material which also do not further limit the claim.
USPTO personnel must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Since a claim must be read as a whole, USPTO personnel may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter. See Gulack, 703F.2d at 1384, 217 USPQ at 403; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981). However, USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d1267, ___, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP § 2111.05.
Limitations such as “maintaining, by the payment processor, the electronic record” are not clear method steps and, as such, will be interpreted as not further limiting.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because it is not clear what the term ”interpreting, by a payment processor or a second financial institution” means to convey in that a second financial institution, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, is not a component of a method or a device.
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because in the representative limitation:
rejecting the unique identifier as payment for the electronic transaction when the identified specific informational content about the unique identifier does not satisfy the expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution and maintaining, by the payment processor, the electronic record to show that ownership of the unique identifier remains with the first party.
“maintaining the electronic record” is not a clear method step and, as such, will be interpreted as not further limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, in the limitation:
determining, based on the interpreting for the electronic transaction involving the unique identifier, whether the specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution;
the term “satisfies expectations” is vague and indefinite in that it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of the “expectations”. Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s specification, but it is devoid of the term “expectations”. The term “expectations” is a subjective term and as such, renders the claim as indefinite. As per MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology [R-07.2022]
IV. SUBJECTIVE TERMS
When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of the term, similar to the analysis for a term of degree. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase “unobtrusive manner” indefinite because the specification did not “provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary”).
For purposes of examination, the limitation/ claim will be interpreted to the best of the Examiner’s ability. Correction is required.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that because particular claims are rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time (See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP § 2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though the claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible.
Claims 5-10 are rejected by way of dependency on a rejected independent claim.
The art rejections below are in view of the 112(b) rejections stated above.
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 4-11 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.
In view of claims 4-10:
The claims are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mitigating risk and commercial interactions which are grouped under methods of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))). Claims recite:
generating and storing, by a first financial institution, an “electronic” record comprising a plurality of unique identifiers,;
updating the “electronic” record to show that ownership of a unique identifier belongs to a first party;
interpreting, by … a second financial institution and for an “electronic” transaction between the first party and a second party that involves the unique identifier, a section of pre-arranged bits of the unique identifier to identify the specific informational content about the unique identifier;
determining, based on the interpreting for the “electronic” transaction involving the unique identifier, whether the specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of … the second financial institution;
accepting the unique identifier as payment for the “electronic” transaction when the identified specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of … the second financial institution, and updating the “electronic” record to show that ownership of the unique identifier has been transferred from the first party to the “electronic” transaction to the second party to the “electronic” transaction while also showing that the first party owned the unique identifier prior to transfer to the second party; and
rejecting the unique identifier as payment for the “electronic” transaction when the identified specific informational content about the unique identifier does not satisfy the expectations of … the second financial institution and maintaining the “electronic” record to show that ownership of the unique identifier remains with the first party.
Limitations such as:
wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank, andwherein each unique identifier is a unique bit sequence containing at least one section of pre-arranged bits that carries specific informational content about that unique identifier including an identity of the central bank or the commercial bank under which the unique identifier has the predetermined monetary value
are merely a description of data and do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as:
a payment processor
an electronic record
a memory
an electronic transaction
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concepts of mitigating risk and commercial interactions using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5-8 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 5-8 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract ideas of mitigating risk and commercial interactions.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the methods of organizing human activity in the independent claim.
In view of claim 11:
The claim is directed to a “device” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention. The claims is directed to the abstract ideas of mitigating risk and commercial interactions which are grouped under organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))), the claim limitations are substantially similar to those of the method of claim 4, with the additional limitation:
accessing an electronic record comprising a plurality of unique identifiers, wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank, and wherein each unique identifier is a unique bit sequence containing at least one section of pre-arranged bits that carries specific informational content about that unique identifier including an identity of the central bank or the commercial bank under which the unique identifier has the predetermined monetary value;
This limitation does not make the claim any less abstract because it merely “accesses data”. And this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as:
a payment processor
an electronic record
a memory
an electronic transaction
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”. Similar rationale applies vis-à-vis step 2B analysis.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
In view of claims 4-11:
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a contract. Citing representative limitation:
accepting the unique identifier as payment for the electronic transaction when the identified specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution the central bank or the commercial bank, and updating, by the payment processor, the electronic record to show that ownership of the unique identifier has been transferred from the first party to the electronic transaction to the second party to the electronic transaction while also showing that the first party owned the unique identifier prior to transfer to the second party
“satisfying expectations” and “transferring ownership” are contractual processes. In view of claim 1 specifically, the limitation:
interpreting, by a payment processor or a second financial institution and for an electronic transaction between the first party and a second party that involves the unique identifier, a section of pre-arranged bits of the unique identifier to identify the specific informational content about the unique identifier;
is non-statutory because, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, a second financial institution is not a component of a method or a device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dill et al (US Pub. 20150032627 A1) in view of Lingappa (US Pub. No. 20150371224 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Dill teaches network token system which provides a platform that can be leveraged by various entities such as third party wallet providers, merchants, acquirers, payment processors, etc. that use tokens to facilitate payment transactions [0011]. In the network token system, a token registry vault can provide interfaces for various entities (e.g., mobile devices, issuers, merchants, mobile wallet providers, acquirers, etc.) to request payment tokens, request information about payment tokens or otherwise process payment tokens. [Id.]. He teaches:
generating and storing in memory, by a first financial institution, an electronic record comprising a plurality of unique identifiers – [0011] “token registry vault”, [0065] “the payment token issuer identifier may be associated with a particular issuer”, [0082] “a payment token issuer identifier”, [0105] and [0127],wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value – [0050] and [0054] “token value”under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank – [0030] “Bank Identification Number (BIN) … issuers”, andwherein each unique identifier is a unique bit sequence containing at least one section of pre-arranged bits that carries specific informational content about that unique identifier – [0050] and [0065];
updating the electronic record to show that ownership of a unique identifier belongs to a first party – [0045], [0046], [0115] and [0159];
interpreting, by a payment processor or a second financial institution and for an electronic transaction between the first party and a second party that involves the unique identifier, a section of pre-arranged bits of the unique identifier to identify the specific informational content about the unique identifier – [0078] “a token requestor identifier may be used in a transaction during authorization processing”;
determining, based on the interpreting for the electronic transaction involving the unique identifier, whether the specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution;
accepting the unique identifier as payment for the electronic transaction when the identified specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution – [0078] and [0082], and updating, by the payment processor, the electronic record to show that ownership of the unique identifier has been transferred from the first party to the electronic transaction to the second party to the electronic transaction while also showing that the first party owned the unique identifier prior to transfer to the second party – [0045], [0046], [0115] and [0159]; and
rejecting the unique identifier as payment for the electronic transaction when the identified specific informational content about the unique identifier does not satisfy the expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution – [0209] “any transaction associated with the authorization request message may be denied as being fraudulent”, and maintaining, by the payment processor, the electronic record to show that ownership of the unique identifier remains with the first party – (not further limiting).
Dill does not explicitly disclose:
generating an electronic record …wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank … including an identity of the central bank or the commercial bank under which the unique identifier has the predetermined monetary value; and
determining, based on the interpreting for the electronic transaction involving the unique identifier, whether the specific informational content about the unique identifier satisfies expectations of the payment processor or the second financial institution.
However, Lingappa teaches systems and methods for the efficient management of a cryptocurrency payment network [0013]. He teaches performing authentication processes for financial institution server computers [0067]. The authentication processes may include determining whether a request message received from a financial institution server computer is from a financial institution that should be granted the rights of an issuer node or a distributor node. This may be determined based on a bank identification number (BIN) or other identifier indicating whether the financial institution associated with the financial institution server computer is a central bank or a commercial bank [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dill’s disclosure to include using a bank identification number (BIN) to identify a central bank or a commercial bank as taught by Lingappa in order to determine whether a request message received from a financial institution server computer is from a financial institution that should be granted the rights of an issuer node or a distributor node – Lingappa [0067].
Claim 7 is not further limiting of claim 4, the claim upon which it depends in that it is merely a design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Dill teaches notifying, in response to rejection the unique identifier as payment for the electronic transaction, the central bank or commercial bank of potential fraud involving the first party or the second party – [0047], [0053] and [0209].
Claim 11 is a device substantially similar to the method of claim 4 and is hence rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Dill teaches:
accessing an electronic record comprising a plurality of unique identifiers, wherein each unique identifier has a predetermined monetary value under the jurisdiction of a central bank or a commercial bank, and wherein each unique identifier is a unique bit sequence containing at least one section of pre-arranged bits that carries specific informational content about that unique identifier including an identity of the central bank or the commercial bank under which the unique identifier has the predetermined monetary value – [0011], [0047], [0050], [0054], [0065], [0082], [0105] and [0127].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dill in view of Lingappa, in further view of Nagasundaram et al (US Pub. No. 20150112870 A1).
Regarding claim 5, neither Dill nor Lingappa explicitly discloses the section of prearranged bits of the unique identifier as identifying the first financial institution that generated the unique identifier.
However, Nagasundaram teaches methods, systems, apparatuses, and computer-readable mediums for generating, providing, and processing a transaction token that provides contextual information that can be provided to any entity within a transaction processing system [0007]. He teaches the transaction token as a payment token [0024]. The payment token may be implemented by using a specific token format. Information may be embedded within the transaction token or within a request or response message associated with the transaction token [0024]. The payment token may include 128 bits or 16 octets and may comprise information regarding the transaction token issuer as well as consumer or product information associated with the transaction token [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dill’s disclosure to include bits of the payment token format to identify a transaction token issuer as taught by Nagasundaram since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, neither Dill nor Lingappa explicitly discloses the section of pre-arranged bits of the unique identifier as identifying information about a range of goods or services for which the predetermined monetary value of the unique identifier can be spent in a the electronic transaction.
However, Nagasundaram teaches the second 64 bits can be used to represent customer and/or product information [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dill’s disclosure to include bits of the payment token format to identify product information as taught by Nagasundaram since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dill in view of Lingappa, in further view of Kylänpää et al (US Pub. No. 20170270518 A1).
Regarding claim 9, neither Dill nor Lingappa explicitly discloses the expectations of the payment processor being satisfied by verifying the identity of the central bank or the commercial bank using the specific informational content about the unique identifier.
However, Kylänpää teaches methods and systems for facilitating anonymous purchases [0014]. A merchant server receives, from a client device, an order-arranged message that includes a payment-arranged message and a delivery-arranged message [0014]. The payment-arranged message includes a payment amount, the order identifier, and a digital signature of a financial institution, and the delivery-arranged message includes delivery-plan data and a digital signature of a courier. The merchant server verifies the respective digital signatures of the financial institution and the courier [Id.]. He teaches a message to a financial-institution server which includes the received order identifier, the purchase price, and any personally-identifying information required by the financial institution to facilitate payment to the merchant [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dill’s disclosure to include using a digital signature of a financial institution required to facilitate payment as taught by Kylänpää because such verifications are old and well known in the art of commercial commerce.
Regarding claim 10, neither Dill nor Lingappa explicitly discloses the expectations of the payment processor being satisfied by matching the electronic transaction to a designated purpose assigned by the central bank or the commercial bank and specified by the specific informational content.
However, Kylänpää teaches verifying that an order identifier received in payment-arranged message matches a generated order identifier [0076]. The merchant server may receive (from the financial institution and in association with the order identifier) a payment in the amount of the payment amount, and/or may verify that the payment amount matches the purchase price [0076]. Examiner interprets matches a generated order identifier as indicative of Applicant’s matching the electronic transaction to a designated purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dill’s disclosure to include using a matches a generated order identifier with order identifier received in payment-arranged message as taught by Kylänpää because such verifications are old and well known in the art of commercial commerce.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Hecht et al: “Real-time Interbank Transactions Systems And Methods”, (US Patent No. 11,068,866 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692