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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 07/20/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, 15, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and an action on the merits follow.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 11, and 20 include “authorizing an amount of payment for each record, wherein the authorizing is performed with an issuer processor using a first communication format; and the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format”. In the specification, there are two different embodiments shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. In Fig. 2, The network can be characterized as proprietary because the file format of the data messages are required to be in a particular format that is consistent of the requirements of the respective network components. (paragraph 24) In Fig. 3, the proprietary format in the collaboration process between the generic issuer processor 344 and the BAS 332 is different from the proprietary data structures in FIG 2. (paragraph 30) However, there is no description or support how can a customized formatted via a proprietary/closed loop network integrated with the payment processing system through the open-loop network using a generic/standard format. There is no support or description how “a first communication format…and communicate… using an open loop network format different than the first communication format” to be processed in the open-loop network payment processing system in Fig. 3.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 11, and 20 comprises “a first communication format and using an open loop network format different than the first communication format”. There is no description in the specification to support this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150668 to Wade, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0127476 to Skiba et al.
With regard to claims 1 and 11, Wade discloses a system configured for processing transaction data, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
receiving transaction data from a plurality of transactions, wherein the transaction data from each of the plurality of transactions: is associated with one or more products, includes cart content information including a record for each of the one or more products, and includes a transaction identifier (paragraphs 38, 39, 47, Financial transactions that are triggered by a retailer in-lane purchase activity are typically communicated in the form of ISO 8583 from the retailer switch 44 to the switch 16. the switch 16 communicates the market basket content data and transaction identification information to the market basket analysis server 12, in the data form that has been parsed and formatted by the switch 16.);
aggregating the transaction data from the plurality of transactions (paragraph 47, the transaction is added to a permanent data log of all transactions);
identifying program rules associated with the one or more products associated with each of the plurality of transactions based on respective cart content information (paragraph 40, The market basket analysis server 12 compares the market basket contents to the product catalog(s) 18. Product catalog(s) 18 have been previously loaded to market basket analysis server 12 from catalog management server 36. Product catalogs 18 contain an items list of approved products, identified by UPC and short description. Market basket line item content data is processed iteratively by the market basket server 12.);
determining product eligibility for payment for each of the one or more products based on the identified program rules (paragraphs 41 and 55-56, This purse can be associated to a restricted spend based upon the catalog 18 that is used to adjudicate an item list. Each item in a market basket is evaluated and compared by the UPC to items approved for the specific purse as related to the product/plan product catalog 18.);
authorizing an amount of payment for each record, wherein the authorizing is performed with an issuer processor using a first communication format (Fig. 3, paragraphs 44, 46-47, and 49, When the credentials are valid, a determination is made to see if there are qualifying items from the market basket. If yes, authorization is required and then returned with processing required. The adjudication transaction may require that the switch 16 obtain financial transaction authorization from one or more issuers. The switch 16 formats the transaction information 60 for routing and processing by the issuer. The switch 16 waits to complete a transaction to the retailer 24 until authorization request(s) are processed and returned by the issuer(s). The switch 16 then performs authorization, formats the transaction for the financial processor 46 and then routes 508 to the issuer for authorization. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner notes that the transaction information 60 for routing and processing by the issuer is formatted for the issuer for authorization, which is considered as “the authorizing is performed with an issuer processor using a first communication format”); and
generating a transaction message indicating that the one or more products were purchased, wherein the transaction message comprises the transaction identifier, (Fig. 1 and 2 and Fig. 5, paragraphs 45-47 and 49, FIG. 1 is an overall system architecture of one embodiment of the present invention outside of a retailer network infrastructure. FIG. 2 is an overall system architecture of one embodiment of the present invention inside a retailer network infrastructure. The result transaction contains transaction identification information, processed market basket adjudication transaction (market basket items flagged to a specific purse and catalog), and financial authorization information. An authorization message 509 is received from the financial processor 46.).
However, Wade does not disclose wherein the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format.
However, Shiba teaches the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format ( With reference to FIG. 3, an exemplary method 30 in which the transaction network (e.g., open loop network (e.g., credit or debit rail). While this determination may be explicitly made, it is contemplated by the present invention that a non-participating merchant may process the dual use card as a typical credit instrument, and since the non-participating merchant's systems are not configured to recognize the dual use capability, may merely route the transaction over the credit or debit rails. If the merchant is not a participating merchant (as determined at 322), the transaction may be routed over the credit or debit rails at 325. The central processor may receive this transaction as a "typical" credit or debit transaction. As a non-limiting example, for a transaction message formatted in accordance with ISO 8583 this information may be included in Bit 111. Examiner notes that a "typical" credit or debit transaction is communicated in an open-loop network payment system using a transaction message formatted in accordance with ISO 8583, which is considered as “using an open loop network format different than the first communication format.”, paragraphs 31-32 and 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wade to include, the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format, as taught in Skiba, in order to operate on a closed loop network with participating merchants for the purchase of eligible goods and/or and an open loop network with non-participating merchants for ineligible goods and/or services (Skiba, paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 2, Wade discloses the transaction data is generated based on a purchase with a purchase card, wherein the purchase is completed at a point of sale (paragraphs 29 and 42).
With regard to claim 5, Wade discloses generating at least one purse, where in the at least one purse comprises an account associated with the program rules associated with the one or more products (paragraphs 26 and 41, systems and methods are provided for implementing a financial transaction card program having buyers. The buyers are restricted to purchase select items from select retailers).
With regard to claim 6, Wade discloses determining a ledger associated with the at least one purse; and adjusting the ledger in response to a determination of product eligibility (paragraph 93, Following the initial release of a catalog 18, maintenance releases are performed on a periodic basis, such as a quarterly basis. The purpose for the maintenance release is to adjust the national brands catalog 18 to include additional products, remove outdated products or change the information pertaining to a specific UPC. ).
With regard to claim 7, Wade discloses the one or more products includes an item purchased at a point-of-sale or a service purchased at the point-of-sale (paragraph 14, at the time of purchase from a point-of-sale device in determining if the item presented is eligible to be purchased by the payment mechanism presented (e.g., magnetic financial transaction card swipe).).
With regard to claim 8, Wade discloses the transaction data further comprises information about a purse type associated with the one or more products (paragraphs 26 and 41, A purse is an identifier for a financial account associated with a financial transaction card. For example, a financial transaction financial transaction card may support spending against a food items catalog and also an over-the-counter drug item catalog. ).
With regard to claim 9, Wade discloses the purse type is associated with a sponsored benefits program (paragraphs 84 and 86-87, The financial transaction card can be used at participating retailers 24 to pay for eligible retail items and services as defined by the sponsor, included but not limited to over the counter medicines and medical supplies).
With regard to claim 12, Wade discloses a he one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: identify a payment device used to complete at least one of the plurality of transactions (paragraph 7, a benefit financial transaction card is provided that includes associating an identification code with the customer. An account record associated with the identification code is accessed and a determination is then made to ascertain if an item presented for purchase by the customer is eligible for a benefit discount.).
With regard to claim 13, Wade discloses the payment device is a mobile device (paragraph 42).
With regard to claim 14, Wade discloses the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: provide rewards to a cardholder based on the transaction data (paragraph 7, An appropriate discount for the item is calculated if it is determined that the item is eligible for a benefit discount. ).
With regard to claim 16, Wade discloses the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: verify the eligibility of the one or more products for payment (paragraphs 14 and 31, The market basket analysis server 12 is coupled to the product catalogs 18 and validates eligible items in the market basket).
With regard to claim 17, Wade discloses determining product eligibility for payment for each of the one or more products based on the identified program rules further comprises verifying a cardholder's eligibility for a benefit (paragraphs 7 and 33, An account record associated with the identification code is accessed and a determination is then made to ascertain if an item presented for purchase by the customer is eligible for a benefit discount. The market basket analysis server 12 can contact the benefit processor 52 via the switch 16 in real time and receive a claim authorization.).
With regard to claim 18, Wade discloses the transaction data further comprises a product code associated with the one or more products (paragraph 136, This ID contains the 3 digit 3 A Y ID provided by MG to represent the retailer UPC_11 Universal Product Code 11).
With regard to claim 19, Wade discloses the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: update, in real time, the program rules associated with the one or more products based on changes in a purse sponsor's benefit plan (paragraph 93, Following the initial release of a catalog 18, maintenance releases are performed on a periodic basis, such as a quarterly basis. The purpose for the maintenance release is to adjust the national brands catalog 18 to include additional products, remove outdated products or change the information pertaining to a specific UPC.).
Claims 3, 4, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150668 to Wade, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0127476 to Skiba et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,788,281 to Pletz et al.
With regard to claims 3, 4, and 20, the combination of references discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method for processing transaction data, the method comprising: receiving transaction data from a plurality of transactions, wherein the transaction data from each of the plurality of transactions: is associated with one or more products ,includes cart content information including a record for each of the one or more products, is generated based on a purchase with a purchase card, wherein the purchase is completed at a point of sale, and includes a transaction identifier; aggregating transaction data from a plurality of transactions; identifying program rules associated with the one or more products associated with each of the plurality of transactions based on respective cart content information; determining product eligibility for payment for each of the one or more products based on the identified program rules; authorizing an amount of payment for each record, wherein the authorizing is performed with an issuer processor using a first communication format; and generating a transaction message indicating that the one or more products were purchased, wherein the transaction message comprises the transaction identifier (Wade, paragraphs 38-41, 44-47, 49, and 55-56). However, the combination of references does not disclose auditing the transaction data associated with the transaction identifier, wherein auditing the transaction data comprises matching the one or more products with pricing data associated with the one or more products; and wherein the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format.
However, Pletz teaches auditing the transaction data associated with the transaction identifier, wherein auditing the transaction data comprises matching the one or more products with pricing data associated with the one or more products (Eligibility module 107 may automatically match purchase activity with the database's information on specific products and services (e.g., medical items defined as "qualified" in an IIAS database 108, or a SKU-level product information database). Based on the information matched with the purchase activity by eligibility module 107, a determination may be made as to whether each purchase is eligible for reimbursement or not. For example, the information may include type of product or service, price, purpose, product or service code, date/time of purchase, merchant data, etc. col. 11, lines 3-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of references to include, auditing the transaction data associated with the transaction identifier, wherein auditing the transaction data comprises matching the one or more products with pricing data associated with the one or more products, as taught in Pletz, in order to simplify the substantiation requirement which required labor-intensive claims processing (Pletz, col. 2, lines 61-63).
However, Shiba teaches the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format (paragraphs 31-32 and 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wade to include, the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format, as taught in Skiba, in order to operate on a closed loop network with participating merchants for the purchase of eligible goods and/or and an open loop network with non-participating merchants for ineligible goods and/or services (Skiba, paragraph 1).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150668 to Wade, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0127476 to Skiba et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0117968 to Bhasin et al.
With regard to claims 10 and 15, Wade discloses the substantially claimed invention, however, Wade does not disclose the transaction data further comprises a location where at least one of the plurality of transactions was made; and/or identify a merchant associated with at least one of the plurality of transactions.
However, Bhasin teaches the transaction data further comprises a location where at least one of the plurality of transactions was made; and/or identify a merchant associated with at least one of the plurality of transactions ( In another example, payment gateway system 106 may determine whether the payment transaction is authorized based on a rule regarding whether a location of user device 102 (e.g., a country and/or area associated with the user associated with user device 102 that is determined based on a billing address for the user, a shopping address for the user, a shipping address for the user, an internet protocol (IP) address for the user, and/or the like) is within an area (e.g., an area associated with user device 102). paragraph 109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of references to include, the transaction data further comprises a location where at least one of the plurality of transactions was made; and/or identify a merchant associated with at least one of the plurality of transactions, as taught in Bhasin, in order to guarantee a payment authorization response during an e-commerce transaction (Bhasin, paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive especially in light of the new prior art applied in the rejections.
Applicants remark that “Wade does not disclose authorizing an amount of payment for each record, wherein the authorizing is performed with an issuer processor using a first communication format; and the issuer processor is configured to communicate with a merchant acquirer using an open loop network format different than the first communication format”.
Examiner directs Applicants' attention to the office action above.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
