CTFR 18/469,941 CTFR 87445 DETAILED ACTION This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/19/2023 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 03/17/2026. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 4 and 14 are canceled. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 16-18 and 20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 03/17/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 6-8, 10, 11, 16-18 and 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. As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a system and a method, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced . The claims recite: A financial account proxy system comprising: a processor; and a memory device storing computer-executable instructions thereon, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, via an Application Programming Interface call , a data packet from a first cardholder device associated with a primary cardholder, the data packet including a limited use machine- readable code , receiver information corresponding to a second cardholder device associated with a secondary cardholder, and one or more limitations that include a time restriction or limit, a pending amount, and a transaction number limit; store the limited use machine-readable code , receiver information, and one or more limitations in the memory device , wherein the limited use machine-readable code is stored in association with a primary account number (PAN) of a financial account of the primary cardholder, the limited use machine-readable code encoding a token that is different from the PAN; store, in the memory device , an association between the token and the PAN; transmit a pre-authorization request message that places a temporary hold equal to the sending amount for the duration of the time restriction or limit to an issuer of the financial account of the primary cardholder; receive pre-authorization details from the issuer and store the pre-authorization details in the memory device ; transmit the limited use machine-readable code to the second cardholder devic e based on the receiver information; receive, via an interchange network , a transaction request authorization message from a merchant point-of-sale (POS) terminal , the transaction request authorization message associated with a transaction performed with the limited use machine-readable code , the transaction request authorization message including transaction details and the limited use machine-readable code ; and determine whether the transaction details violate one of the one or more limitations; in response to receiving the transaction request authorization message and based on a determination that the transaction details do not violate any of the one or more limitation: generate a one-time password (OTP); transmit the generated OTP to the second cardholder device via the digital wallet stored on the second cardholder device ; receive in a subsequent electronic message originating from the merchant POS terminal and received via an acquirer, a second OTP entered by the secondary cardholder at the merchant POS terminal ; compare the received second OTP to the generated OTP; determine that the received second OTP matches the generated OTP; in response to determining that the received second OTP matches the generated OTP: match the limited use machine-readable code to the PAN; transmit, via the interchange network , a transaction authorization request message that includes the PAN to the issuer. automatically void the limited-use machine-readable code upon one or more of the following: the transaction has been processed, the transaction has been declined, the time restriction or limit has been met or exceeded, the spending amount has been met, and the transaction number limit has been met. said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to void the limited use machine-readable code after one or more of the following: the transaction has been processed, the transaction has been declined, the time restriction or limit has been met or exceeded, the spending amount has been met, and the transaction number limit has been met. said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to transmit a notification to the primary cardholder, the notification including details of the transaction. said notification including whether the transaction violated one of the one or more limitations. said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to decline the transaction based on a determination that the transaction details violate one of the one or more limitations. said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to: match the limited use machine-readable code to the PAN based on a determination that the transaction details do not violate one of the one or more limitations; said one or more limitations includes one or more of the following: a geolocation or geofence, a Merchant Category Code(s), and a merchant name(s). Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers facilitating a transaction authorization. Facilitating a transaction authorization is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes) This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “processor” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply. For example, the limitation “ receive, via an Application Programming Interface call , a data packet from a first cardholder device associated with a primary cardholder, the data packet including a limited use machine- readable code , receiver information corresponding to a second cardholder device associated with a secondary cardholder, and one or more limitations that include a time restriction or limit, a pending amount, and a transaction number limit ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the data packet from the first cardholder; the limitation “ store the limited use machine-readable code , receiver information, and one or more limitations in the memory device , wherein the limited use machine-readable code is stored in association with a primary account number (PAN) of a financial account of the primary cardholder, the limited use machine-readable code encoding a token that is different from the PAN ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing the limited use code, receiver information and the one or more limitation; the limitation “ store, in the memory device , an association between the token and the PAN ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing the association between the token and the PAN; the limitation “ transmit a pre-authorization request message to an issuer of the financial account of the primary cardholder ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the pre-authorization request message to the issuer; the limitation “ receive pre-authorization details from the issuer and store the pre-authorization details in the memory device” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the pre-authorization details from the issuer and storing the pre-authorization; the limitation “ transmit the limited use machine-readable code to the second cardholder device based on the receiver information ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting the limited use code to the second cardholder based on receiver information; the limitation “ receive, via an interchange network, a transaction request authorization message from a merchant point-of-sale (POS) terminal , the transaction request authorization message associated with a transaction performed with the limited use machine-readable code , the transaction request authorization message including transaction details and the limited use machine-readable code” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the transaction request authorization message from a merchant; the limitation “ determine whether the transaction details violate one of the one or more limitations ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining whether the transaction details violate one of the one or more limitations; the limitation “ in response to receiving the transaction request authorization message and based on a determination that the transaction details do not violate any of the one or more limitation: generate a one-time password (OTP); transmit the generated OTP to the second cardholder device via the digital wallet stored on the second cardholder device ; receive in a subsequent electronic message originating from the merchant POS terminal and received via an acquirer, a second OTP entered by the secondary cardholder at the merchant POS terminal ; compare the received second OTP to the generated OTP; determine that the received second OTP matches the generated OTP ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating and transmitting the OTP to the second cardholder receiving the second OTP from merchant POS and matching the second OTP to the generated OTP to determine whether the two match; the limitation “ in response to determining that the received second OTP matches the generated OTP: match the limited use machine-readable code to the PAN; transmit, via the interchange network, a transaction authorization request message that includes the PAN to the issuer ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of matching the limited use code to the PAN and transmitting a transaction authorization request message to the issuer in response to determining the second OTP matches the generated OTP; the limitation “automatically void the limited use machine-readable code after one or more of the following: the transaction has been processed, the transaction has been declined, the time restriction or limit has been met or exceeded, the spending amount has been met, and the transaction number limit has been met ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of voiding the limited use code conditionally; the limitation “said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to transmit a notification to the primary cardholder, the notification including details of the transaction ... said notification including whether the transaction violated one of the one or more limitations ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of transmitting a notification to the primary cardholder; the limitation “said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to decline the transaction based on a determination that the transaction details violate one of the one or more limitations ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of declining the transaction based on determination that transaction details violate one of the one or more limitations; the limitation “said computer-executable instructions causing the processor to: match the limited use machine-readable code to the PAN based on a determination that the transaction details do not violate one of the one or more limitations and transmit a transaction authorization request message that includes the PAN to the issuer ” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of matching the limited use code to the PAN based on the determination that transaction details do not violate one or the one or more limitations and transmitting a transaction authorization request message to the issuer; Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically. The additional element(s) of “memory device” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception. The additional element(s) of “via an Application Programming Interface call”, “via the digital wallet stored on the second … device”, “data packet” and “via an interchange network” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting. The additional element(s) of “machine-readable code” are generically recited as a credential such a passcode for conducting the transaction authorization. The additional element(s) of “terminal” are generically recited to perform input/output steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient technological detail for how the interface accomplish it. The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as or “electronic” and “automatically” are appended to abstract elements such as “message” and “voiding”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer. Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to facilitate transaction authorization amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent claim 7, 10, 17 and 20 merely limit the abstract idea but do not recite any additional element beyond the cited abstract idea, thus, do not amount to significantly more. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No) Therefore, claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s maintained argument that the claims do not recite commercial or legal interaction and/or sales activities or behaviors recognized by the federal courts, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims themselves recite the processing of transaction authorization. For example, claim 1 recites “determine whether the transaction details violate one of the one or more limitation”, “generate a one-time password”, “ compare the received second OTP to the generated OTP” and “in response to determining that the received second OTP matches the generated OTP: match the limited use machine-readable code to the PAN; and transmit, via the interchange network, a transaction authorization request message that includes the PAN to the issuer”. The claims explicitly recite a financial transaction interaction between the cardholder, the point of sale and the transaction handler. As such, the claims do recite a commercial interaction. Regarding the applicant’s argument that the Judicial Exception is integrated into practical application, the examine respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleged that the claims “provide a technical improvement in authorization security and message handling, rather than merely producing a business result. However, it should be noted transaction verification process is a commercial interaction. As responded previous, while the claimed process of storing token association with primary account number and generating a one time password, sending the OTP to a secondary cardholder, receiving the OTP from the merchant may indeed improve transaction security, the claimed process is not particular to electronic transaction technology. The conditional transmitting of PAN recited in previous claim 4 and currently in the independent claims adds only detail to the transactional aspect of the Judicial Exception. It should be noted that improvement to the Judicial Exception, such as how Alice Corp.’s invention improves mitigation of settlement risk, is not an improvement to another technology; and that generically applying a more secured Judicial Exception to a technological environment is not an improvement to technology. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims recite significantly more / an inventive concept, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner noted that the operations (1) to (5) in Remark page 11 are merely arrangement of the Judicial Exception. A specific arrangement of Judicial Exception steps is nonetheless ineligible. The applicant cited Cosmokey Solutions GMBH & Co. v. Duo Security LLC and Ancora Techs. v. HTC America but the examiner noted that the instant application does not share similar fact pattern as the precedents. In particular, non-technological authentication arrangement, such as the used on OTP and condition-based credential, does not improve technology. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST 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 attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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. /CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 2 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 3 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 4 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 5 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 6 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 7 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 8 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 9 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 10 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 11 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 12 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/469,941 Page 13 Art Unit: 3693
Prosecution Insights