DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner Comments
This action is in response to applicant amendment/response filed on 07/16/2025. Of previously presented claims 1-20, the response amended claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 18-20. After careful consideration of applicant’s amendments and arguments, new ground of rejections of claims necessitated by applicant amendment has been established in the instant application as set forth in detail below. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,297; claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,348,111; claims 1-8 of 10,152,714; and claims 1-18 of U. S. Patent No.10,089,629, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
“generating one or more limitations for first account number; and assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the time period indicates a time after which the account number cannot be used”
2. As per independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of instant application, claims 1, 8 and 15 of patent ‘297, claims 1 and 10 of patent ‘111, claims 1 and 5 of patent ‘714; and claims 1 and 10 of patent ‘827 teach all element of claimed subject matter as italicized above. The claims in the instant application do not teach “determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number; and assigning one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions.”
.”
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 idirected to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a system and method sending a transaction approval message in response to determining that both the time period has not expired and that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request. The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising at least a storage device and a processor for sending a transaction approval message. The claimed device is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Claim 8 is directed to a process i.e., a series of method steps or acts, of for sending a transaction approval message which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is a manufacture. The claim, thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claims recite plurality of steps of “retrieving transaction data representing past transactions associated with the first account number; determining one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number; generating one or more limitations for the first account number on the transaction data and assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions; receiving a transaction request to approve a transaction related to the first account number”.
The limitations of “retrieving transaction data; determining one or more typical types of transactions; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period; generating one or more limitations and assigning the one or more limitations and a time period that authorizes future transactions and ; receiving a transaction request to approve a transaction related to the first account number….” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc.,, a computer implemented method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages data from lenders and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module, and thus fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, but for the “using the processor” language, “generating and assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the account number and receiving transaction request ……” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generating, assigning and requesting…” steps as recited. The recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C) (ii). Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III (A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor performing “determining that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request and in response to determining that both (i) the transaction request was received prior to the time period expiring and that (ii) the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request, sending a transaction approval message to approve the transaction.”
An evaluation of whether limitations in Step 2A, Prong 1 are insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere data gathering such as determining, based on the transaction request, that both the time period has not expired and that the one or more limitations have not been violated for use of the recited judicial exception in implementing sending a transaction approval message. This limitation in the claim is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitations i.e., it is the tool that is used in steps described in Prong 1. But the processor is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the processor, which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the processor is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of “determining that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request and in response to determining that both (i) the transaction request was received prior to the time period expiring and that (ii) the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request, sending a transaction approval message to approve the transaction, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant.
Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a processor being configured to in response to determining, based on the transaction request, that both the time period has not expired and that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request, sending a transaction approval message is mere data gathering and sending the order that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Further, Applicant specifically described invention is to implement generating one or more limitations for first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, receiving a transaction request to approve a transaction related to the account number (see Fig. 5). The claimed additional elements of in response to determining, based on the transaction request, that both the time period has not expired and that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request, sending a transaction approval message to approve the transaction is implemented using examples of existing computer networking equipment, hardware, and software that are used to construct the claimed invention without apparent modification (Fig. 2 Specification: paragraph [048-054]). Therefore, the additional element only recite generic components and steps are well-understood routine and conventional. Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. (NO).
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 14-20 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional steps which further describes “receiving data related to the account number and past transaction activity (claim 2) , receive a message indicating suspicious account activity/lost communication (claim 3 and 4), transmit a communication comprising the time period and the one or more limitations (claim 5), generate for display options (claim 6), and determining locations, defining a geographic boundary centered and restricting future transactions to an area within the geographic boundary (claim 7)” which is again appear to be a mental process using a generic computer component that include configuring data using generic computers that been found to be an abstract idea as described above. These dependent claims 2-7 is similar other dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claims 1, 8 or 15. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible (NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucia Specogna et al., U.S. Pub No. 2016/0189123 (reference A in attached PTO-892) (called Lucia et al. hereinafter) in view of Dixon et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,856,024 (reference C in cited reference PTO-892 in the last office action)
As per claim 1, Lucia et al. teach a system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see Fig. 2, Service Providing Device (202) -> Processors (204), Memory Devices (212): paragraph [0082 and 0084]) comprising:
in response to receiving a request associated with a first account number to generate a second account number different from the first account number (see Fig. 6, Step 602; paragraph [0142-0143]; where request is made to generate a new permanent card account number in response to automated fraud determination);
retrieving transaction data representing past transactions associated with the first account number (see paragraph [0045, 0127, and 0134]; where historical transaction or transactional pattern are received for account identifier is received);
generating one or more limitations for the first account number on the transaction data based on the transaction data (see Fig. 6, Step 604; paragraph [0144]; where restriction or conditions for temporary use of the existing account number is generated for immediate access to funds prior to new account number is generated as described in paragraph [0016-0017]); and
assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the time period indicates a time after which the first account number cannot be used (see Fig. Step 806: paragraph [0145]; where restriction on use of existing account identifier or number include shorter expiration of time period after which the existing account number cannot be used and deactivated/disassociated with cardholder’s financial account);
subsequent to the one or more limitations and the time period being assigned to the first account number, receiving a transaction request to approve a transaction related to the first account number ((see Fig. 8A: Steps 804 and 808; paragraph [0026, 0077, 0160-0162]; where user enter inputs existing account identifier for temporary use and user selected restrictive conditions of specified amount or number of transaction over predetermined time period to validate account identifier for approving the transaction));
in response to determining that both (i) the transaction request was received prior to the time period expiring and that (ii) the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request, sending a transaction approval message to approve the transaction (see Fig. 8C, Step 838: Validated ->Yes/No: paragraph [0174-0175, 0144-0145]; where approval for withdrawal amount is based time period prior to expiration).
Lucia et al. do not teach determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions; and determining, based on the transaction corresponding to one of the one or more typical types of transactions, that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request.
Dixon et al. teach determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number (see Fig. 10C, Step 1040-3: Column 23, lies 12-59; where transaction is determined based on historical usage pattern for location and time for a PAN or account identifier); assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions (see Fig. 10C: Column 24, lines 36-53; where an action is taken so that PAN use is restricted in terms of time period in future transaction and prevent any future transaction not meeting the restriction); and determining, based on the transaction corresponding to one of the one or more typical types of transactions, that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request (column 24, lines 48-53; where transaction of certain number of transaction in the specified time period such as restriction of ten uses per month is not violated and allowed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions; and determining, based on the transaction corresponding to one of the one or more typical types of transactions, that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request to Lucia et al. because Dixon et al. teach including above features would enable to prevent misuse Primary Account Number (PAN) by setting limit or condition on future transactions (Dixon et al., Column 24, lines 47-53).
As per claim 2, Lucia et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Lucia et al. further teach the system, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
in response to receiving the data related to the first account number, retrieving the transaction data representing the past transactions corresponding to the first account number, wherein the transaction data comprises transaction details of the past transactions (see Fig. 2, Conditions for Temporary Use generation/Determination Module (228) <-> Datastore (234): Historical Transaction Information ( 238): paragraph [0070 and 0127]; where past transaction data associated with account identified includes details of information indicative of past transaction activitity).
As per claim 3, Lucia et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Lucia et al. further teach the system, wherein receiving the data comprises
receiving a message indicating fraudulent suspicious account activity or receiving a lost card communication, wherein the fraud communication request comprises the message (see Fig. 3, Client Application (305): paragraph [0101]; where card holder communicate with CSR when card is stolen/lost or is under suspicious activity).
As per claim 4, Lucia et al. teach the claim 2 as described above. Lucia et al. further teach the system wherein
the data related to the first account number comprises an input from a user or a message from a Server received using a mobile device (see Fig. 1, Cardholder (102): User Devices (104); paragraph [0053-0054]).
As per claim 5, Lucia et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Lucia et al. further teach the system, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
transmitting, using a communication system, to a recipient device, a communication, comprising a command including the time period and the one or more limitations, wherein the recipient device displays the one or more limitations in association with the first account number based on the command (see Fig. 6: paragraph [0142, 0144, 0145, 0068-0070]; where condition of temporary use existing card identifier is generated and displayed to user interface in remote transaction or local ATM which includes time expiry of condition after which existing card identifier cannot be used)..
As per claim 6, Lucia et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Lucia et al. further teach the system, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying options to modify the one or more limitations associated with the first account number (see Fig. 2, Condition for Temporary Use Generation /Determination Modules (228): Conditions for Temporary Use Information (242), and Historical Transaction Information (238): paragraph [0069-0079, 0142, 0145]; where one more limitation associated with existing account is modifiable based historical data or one time use, or before condition has not expired time established).
As per claim 7, Lucia et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Lucia et al. further teach the system wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining locations where the past transactions associated with the first account number occurred (see Fig. 2: Fund Dispensing Location Determination (Module) (230): Historical Transaction Information (238): Fig. 6, Steps 610 and 612; paragraph [0134, 0148]; where restriction to use card is based on historical or past transaction history)
defining a geographic boundary that includes at least a portion of the locations where the past transactions associated with the first account number occurred; and restricting future transactions to an area within the geographic boundary by designating the geographic boundary as one of the one or more limitations (see paragraph [0149, 0134]; where dispensing location is within threshold distance from the cardholder location or only financial institution branch or certain types of dispensing types or risks assessment associated with cardholder).
As per claim 8, Lucia et al. teach a method comprising:
receiving, using one or more processors, a suspicious activity communication associated with a first account number requesting generation of a second account number (see Fig. 6, Step 602; paragraph [0142-0143]; where request is made to generate a new permanent card account number in response to automated fraud determination);
retrieving transaction data representing past transactions associated with the first account number (see paragraph [0045, 0127, and 0134]; where historical transaction or transactional pattern are received for account identifier is received);
generating, using the one or more processors, one or more limitations for the first account number based on the transaction data (see Fig. 6, Step 604; paragraph [0144]; where restriction or conditions for temporary use of the existing account number is generated for immediate access to funds prior to new account number is generated as described in paragraph [0016-0017]);
assigning, using the one or more processors, the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the time period indicates a time after which the first account number cannot be used (see Fig. Step 806: paragraph [0145]; where restriction on use of existing account identifier or number include shorter expiration of time period after which the existing account number cannot be used and deactivated/disassociated with cardholder’s financial account);
subsequent to the one or more limitations and the time period being assigned, receiving a transaction request to approve a transaction related to the first account number (see Fig. 8A: Steps 804 and 808; paragraph [0026, 0077, 0160-0162]; where user enter inputs existing account identifier for temporary use and user selected restrictive conditions of specified amount or umber of transaction over predetermined time period to validate account identifier for approving the transaction);
determining, using the one or more processors, that (i) the transaction request was received prior to the time period expiring (ii) the transaction corresponds to the one of the one or more typical types of transactions, and (iii) the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request; and in response to determining that both (i) the transaction request was received prior to the time period expiring; ii) the transaction corresponds to the one of the one or more typical types of transactions, and (iii) the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request (see Fig. 9, Step 906: Yes/NO: paragraph [0077, 0179-0180, 0144-0145]; where rules constraints such as time period until expiration geographic location/ perimeter/threshold or transaction amount limit violation is checked and temporary card use condition is checked), generating using the one or more processors, a transaction approval message to approve the transaction (see Fig. 8C, Step 838: Validated ->Yes/No; Fig. 9, Step 910: paragraph [0174-0175, 0144-0145]; where approval for withdrawal amount is based on types of transaction with transaction amount or number of transactions or geographic range within a predetermined time period prior to expiration).
Lucia et al. do not teach determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions; and determining, based on the transaction corresponding to one of the one or more typical types of transactions, that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request.
Dixon et al. teach determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number (see Fig. 10C, Step 1040-3: Column 23, lies 12-59; where transaction is determined based on historical usage pattern for location and time for a PAN or account identifier); assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions (see Fig. 10C: Column 24, lines 36-53; where an action is taken so that PAN use is restricted in terms of time period in future transaction and prevent any future transaction not meeting the restriction); and determining, based on the transaction corresponding to one of the one or more typical types of transactions, that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request (column 24, lines 48-53; where transaction of certain number of transaction in the specified time period such as restriction of ten uses per month is not violated and allowed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow determining, based on one or more patterns identified using the transaction data, one or more typical types of transactions associated with the first account number; assigning the one or more limitations and a time period to the first account number, wherein the one or more limitations include a limitation that authorizes future transactions that are of the one or more typical types of transactions and prevents future transactions that differ from the one or more typical types of transactions; and determining, based on the transaction corresponding to one of the one or more typical types of transactions, that the one or more limitations have not been violated by the transaction request to Lucia et al. because Dixon et al. teach including above features would enable to prevent misuse Primary Account Number (PAN) by setting limit or condition on future transactions (Dixon et al., Column 24, lines 47-53).
As per claims 9-14, Lucia et al. teach claim 8 as described above. Claims 9-14 are rejected under same rational as the claims 2-7 as described above.
As per claim 15, Lucia et al. teach one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see Fig. 2, Service Providing Device (202) -> Processors (204), Memory Devices (212), Modules (220, 222, 224, 226.228, 230 and 232), Internal Data Storage (206): paragraph [0082 and 0084]) comprising steps as described in the claim 1.
As per claims 16-20, Lucia et al. teach claim 15as described above. Claims 16-20 are rejected under same rational as the claims 2-6 as described above.
Response to Arguments
New ground of rejections of claims necessitated by applicant amendment has been established in the instant application after careful consideration of applicant’s amendments and arguments as described above. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
Chopra (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0222635) teaches system and method for reducing fraud.
Faith et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2010/0280950) teach transaction authorization using time-dependent transaction patterns.
Geddes (U.S. Patent No. 9,172,679) teaches replacing account number for using limited-use account number.
Howe (U. S. Pub No. 2015/0371231) teaches temporary replacement of real account numbers.
Jin, Kim Yeong (KR 2003-0045232 A) teaches setting card replacement card having restrictions.
Morgan et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0180598) teach processing payment using proxy card until replace card is received.
Kapur et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2010/0057616) teaches recurring payment transactions.
Kumnick et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0199689) teach payment account identifier system.
Zo et al. (WO 01/95204) teach
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 11/10/2025