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 the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 08 September 2023. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for Provisional Application 63/406,118 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 13 September 2022, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
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 1-20 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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim recites “a … method comprising:
receiving, at a provider [entity] associated with a provider of a transaction card to a user, a request to perform a transaction for an identified amount between the user and a merchant [entity];
identifying, at the provider [entity], a card value store associated with the transaction card of the user, the card value store being associated with a primary value store distinct from the card value store and maintained by the provider [entity];
determining, at the provider [entity], whether the transaction card of the user is in an active state or an inactive state, wherein:
the transaction card is configured to be in an active state if:
an automatic transfer of a predetermined threshold amount occurred in a most-recent predetermined time interval, the automatic transfer causing the predetermined threshold amount to be transferred to the primary value store from a third-party institution associated with the user, or
the provider [entity] receives an indication from the third-party institution that the automatic transfer has been authorized to occur in the future; and
transmitting a [message] to the merchant [entity], the [message instructing] to authorize the transaction on behalf of the user when the transaction card is in the active state or deny the transaction on behalf of the user when the transaction card is in the inactive state.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. computer, processor, server, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is recites certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. The method recited above is a process of authorizing a transaction between a user and a merchant based on transaction card information (i.e. automatic transfer), which is fundamental economic principle or practice. Additionally, the method involves various interactions between a provider, user, and merchant to exchange information with respect to the transaction (e.g. transaction request, identify information, compare information, transmit message, etc.), which is commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, certain methods of organizing human activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “computer”, “server”, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computing apparatus”, “processor”, and “memory” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, but are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data, identify and compare data, and transmit data, as disclosed by Specification:
[89] “Useful machines for performing operations of various embodiments include general purpose digital computers or similar devices”
[91] “Various embodiments also relate to apparatus or systems for performing these operations. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purpose or it may comprise a general purpose computer as selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer.”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, compare, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, this additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “wherein the card is associated with a predetermined minimum amount defined for the predetermined time interval, and the threshold amount is more than the predetermined minimum amount.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. predetermined minimum amount and threshold amount), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein the predetermined time interval is daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. predetermined time interval), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein the transaction card is associated with a maximum amount, and the threshold amount is a predefined percentage of the maximum amount.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. maximum amount and threshold amount), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “wherein the primary value store is a part of a pooled value store shared between a plurality of users, and the primary value store is assigned a unique identifier configured to distinguish the user's primary value store from other primary value stores in the pooled value store.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. primary value store), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “wherein the primary value store is under a control of the user and not the provider.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. primary value store), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 14 recite “further comprising: receiving a request from a merchant server to authorize a second transaction directly from the primary value store; determining that a sufficient value exists in the primary value store for the second transaction; and transmitting a second control signal to the merchant server, the control signal configured to cause a transfer of value corresponding to an amount of the transaction from the primary value store to the merchant server.” The claims provide further steps to perform a second transaction, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claims, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shakkarwar (US 10719876 B2).
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, Shakkarwar discloses a computer-implemented method (See Figures 1 and 2 for system) comprising:
receiving, at a provider server associated with a provider of a transaction card to a user, a request to perform a transaction for an identified amount between the user and a merchant server (See Figure 7 – steps 702 and 704, as disclosed [Col 13 Lines 35-51] “As shown, the method 700 begins at step 702, where a merchant receives a child transaction initiated using a child product … At step 704, the child transaction is routed to the payment processing platform”);
identifying, at the provider server, a card value store associated with the transaction card of the user, the card value store being associated with a primary value store distinct from the card value store and maintained by the provider server (See Figure 7 – steps 714 to 716, as disclosed [Col 14 Lines 53-67] “then the method 700 proceeds to step 714, where the payment processing platform determines whether the child transaction is associated with rules parameters and, if so, whether the rules parameters are satisfied. As previously described, the rules parameters cause particular types of transactions to withdraw funds for that transaction from one or more particular accounts. For example, a user can specify that when a grocery store purchase is made, only banking accounts (e.g., savings and checking accounts) should be used to pay for the purchase, thereby foregoing charging the amounts to a credit card … However, if the rules parameters are not satisfied, then, at step 715, the payment processing platform chooses one or more accounts indicated by the rules parameters, whereupon step 716 is performed”);
determining, at the provider server, whether the transaction card of the user is in an active state or an inactive state (See Figure 7 – step 718, as disclosed [Col 17 Lines 7-16] “At step 718, the payment processing platform determines whether the child transaction has spillover functionality enabled. If, at step 718, the payment processing platform determines that the child transaction has spillover functionality enabled, the method 700 proceeds to step 760, described above. If, at step 718, the payment processing platform determines that the child transaction does not have spillover functionality enabled, the method 700 proceeds to step 710, described above”), wherein:
the transaction card is configured to be in an active state if (See Figure 7 – steps 760 to 772 with respect to the spillover process):
an automatic transfer of a predetermined threshold amount occurred in a most-recent predetermined time interval, the automatic transfer causing the predetermined threshold amount to be transferred to the primary value store from a third-party institution associated with the user, or
the provider server receives an indication from the third-party institution that the automatic transfer has been authorized to occur in the future (See Figure 4 – block 404 which determines the activation of the spillover feature, which is an automatic transfer authorized to occur in the feature in case the child product could not fully fund the transaction, as disclosed [Col 20 Lines 8-18] “A child product can also be linked to one or more spillover accounts that provide emergency funds to the child product when transactions generated by the child product cannot be fully funded by core account that is linked to the child product. The spillover accounts are sequentially accessed in attempt to supply the funds that were unable to be withdrawn from the one or more core accounts that are linked to the child product. Linking one or more spillover accounts also reduces the frequency of overdraft fees and declined transactions”); and
transmitting a control signal to the merchant server, the control signal configured to authorize the transaction on behalf of the user when the transaction card is in the active state or deny the transaction on behalf of the user when the transaction card is in the inactive state (See Figure 7 – step 718, as disclosed [Col 17 Lines 7-16] “At step 718, the payment processing platform determines whether the child transaction has spillover functionality enabled. If, at step 718, the payment processing platform determines that the child transaction has spillover functionality enabled, the method 700 proceeds to step 760, described above. If, at step 718, the payment processing platform determines that the child transaction does not have spillover functionality enabled, the method 700 proceeds to step 710, described above”, wherein step 760 proceeds to authorize the transaction and step 710 rejects the transaction based on the state of the spillover feature).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Shakkarwar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the computing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the card is associated with a predetermined minimum amount defined for the predetermined time interval, and the threshold amount is more than the predetermined minimum amount ([Col 8 Lines 50-62] “Referring back to FIG. 3A, at step 304, control parameters are selected. In one embodiment, control parameters include a series of restrictions on transactions made with the child product. For example, the control parameters may include, but are not limited to, a card spending limit, a per-transaction spending limit, a daily spending limit, a weekly spending limit, a limit on number of transactions in a given period of time, … an expiration date, … a time of day, a day of week, a date of month, … a reset frequency for reset-able cards, … and the like” and see also Figure 4 – control parameters 406).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Shakkarwar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, and the computing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the predetermined time interval is daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly ([Col 8 Lines 50-62] “Referring back to FIG. 3A, at step 304, control parameters are selected. In one embodiment, control parameters include a series of restrictions on transactions made with the child product. For example, the control parameters may include, but are not limited to … a daily spending limit, a weekly spending limit, a limit on number of transactions in a given period of time … a time of day, a day of week, a date of month, … and the like”).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Shakkarwar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the computing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the primary value store is a part of a pooled value store shared between a plurality of users, and the primary value store is assigned a unique identifier configured to distinguish the user's primary value store from other primary value stores in the pooled value store (See Figure 4 – accounts 402, as disclosed [Col 9 Lines 42-47] “As shown, the selection of core accounts 402 allows for the child product to be linked to multiple core accounts, where each selected core account contributes a particular percentage of the total funds required to complete each transaction initiated using the child product”).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Shakkarwar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the computing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the primary value store is under a control of the user and not the provider (See Figure 4 displaying the user interface which allows the user to control the parameters for a child product).
As per claims 7 and 14, Shakkarwar teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving a request from a merchant server to authorize a second transaction directly from the primary value store (See Figure 9 – step 902, as disclosed [Col 19 Lines 27-29] “As shown, the method 900 begins at step 902, where the payment processing platform receives a transaction initiated using a child product”, wherein [Col 19 Lines 20-26] “Throughout the method 900, a rules parameter is configured to, for all transactions initiated using a child product, withdraw, from a credit card account that is associated with the rules parameter, an amount of funds to pay for the entire transaction. Subsequently, the same amount of funds is transferred from a core account to the credit card account”);
determining that a sufficient value exists in the primary value store for the second transaction (See Figure 9 – step 906, as disclosed [Col 19 Lines 31-35] “At step 906, the payment processing platform determines that the rules parameter is associated with a core account (e.g., a checking account or a prepaid account) and a credit card account, and is configured to behave according to the technique described above”); and
transmitting a second control signal to the merchant server, the control signal configured to cause a transfer of value corresponding to an amount of the transaction from the primary value store to the merchant server (See Figure 9 – step 908, as disclosed [Col 19 Lines 36-37] “At step 908, an amount of funds to pay for the entire transaction is debited from the credit card account”).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakkarwar (US 10719876 B2) in view of Rader et al. (US 20100197383 A1).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Shakkarwar may not explicitly disclose, but Rader teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the computing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the transaction card is associated with a maximum amount, and the threshold amount is a predefined percentage of the maximum amount ([0089] “In some embodiments, limits on auto-transfer parameters may be imposed … for specific smart cards (e.g., for individual players), … etc. Furthermore, the types of limits imposed may include threshold values (e.g., as discussed in the preceding paragraph), percentage-based restrictions (e.g., an auto-transfer value limited to 75% of the credit balance), or other types of limitations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize limit settings, such as predefined percentage as threshold amount of the maximum amount of the credit balance as in Rader in the system executing the method of Shakkarwar, wherein Shakkarwar already teaches of putting a maximum amount control parameter on the transaction card as disclosed in [Col 8 Lines 50-62], with the motivation of offering to [0088-0089] improve user convenience, security, and risk management as taught by Rader over that of Shakkarwar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8 to 14, filed 07-November-2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, see pages 8 to 10, that the claims recite a specific technological solution to a technical problem (e.g. does not recite an abstract idea). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. computer, processor, server, etc.), the claims recite a process of authorizing a transaction between a user and a merchant based on transaction card information (i.e. automatic transfer), which is fundamental economic principle or practice. The claims provide steps of analyzing financial data (e.g. transaction amount, card value, threshold amount), and various interactions are involved between the parties (i.e. provider, user, merchant) to exchange information regarding the transaction, which is commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activities.
Applicant contends, see pages 10 to 11, that the claims here are similar to claims found patent-eligible in cases where the invention provided a specific technological solution rather than merely automating a known business practice. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claim limitations do not configure, alter, modify, or control any of the underlying technology, rather the steps are merely comparing the received data (e.g. is the card in an active state or inactive state) and transmitting a signal (i.e. information) to authorize or deny the transaction. Unlike the cases, the claims here lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities.
Applicant contends, see pages 11 to 12, that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements are generic computer components merely applied to implement the abstract idea by perform its generic functionalities (receive, identify, compare, and transmit data). Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, compare, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Applicant contends, see pages 12 to 14, that the claims recite significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claims, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14 to 17, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As disclosed above under 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the referenced prior art Shakkarwar teaches that the card is determined to be in an “active” state (i.e. spillover feature has been activated) if an indication is received that the automatic transfer has been authorized to occur in the future, from Figure 4 – block 404 and [Col 20 Lines 8-18]. These steps are performed to determine whether to authorize or deny the child’s transaction, which is recited by the claims. There is no claim limitation requiring that the timing and authorization status must be determined before a transaction request arrives, rather the claim merely recites to receive data regarding a transaction card and a transaction, determine the state of the transaction card, and authorize or deny the transaction based on the determined state. The “spillover” mechanism is merely data or information that determines the “state” of the card (e.g. is the data active or inactive), similar to the current claim limitations. Therefore, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Petersen et al. (US 20120214577 A1) discloses [0054] “In some implementations, applications running on the EGM may perform specific operations. For example, an application may run on the EGM that automatically triggers a transaction which seeks to replenish funds when a given balance falls below a specified threshold. Such an application may include one or more of the following operations: the EGM may read one or more parameter(s) stored on a smart card; an application on the smart card (e.g., a Patron Management module and/or applet) may call a function on the application to make a change; the application may validate one or more permissions and/or rules; the application may make one or more changes to the card; a player may specify a credit threshold balance that may trigger an automatic transfer; and/or the appropriate amount of cash and/or credit may be moved when the card is inserted into an EGM, when the configuration value is checked, after one or more credit balances on the EGM are below the specified balance threshold, and/or after performing one or more security validations”.
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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights