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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 3/18/2026, claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the noted allowable subject matter:
Examiner noted that the entirety of the previous claim 4 was noted to be allowable if re-written into the independent claim, not just portions of the claims and further altering of the independent claim, further another search has been conducted and based on the amended claims prior art has been found.
Regarding the 103 arguments and Official Notice:
Applicant has not traversed the Official Notice or Applicant’s traverse is not adequate. Therefore, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art and the Official Notice is maintained and is final. Please see MPEP 2144.03. In the present case, the Applicant’s arguments do not constitute an adequate traversal of the Official Notice because the Appellant has not specifically pointed out the supposed errors in the Examiner's rejection, which includes stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Simply requesting evidence does not constitute a proper transversal of the noted facts.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 4-6, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0254647 A1 to Bondesen et al. (“Bondesen”), in view of United States Patent No. 8,144,941 B2 to Adams et al. (“Adams”).
In regards to claims 1 and 11, Bondesen discloses the following limitations:
A token management computing system for provisioning at least one secure payment token for use in payment transactions, the token management computing system comprising: a token management (“TM”) server comprising: a memory device for storing data; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory device, (see at least Bondesen ¶¶ 0061-0065; FIG. 2, illustrating an issuing financial institution system 132 having a processing device 244 communicatively coupled to a memory device 246 storing a token application 250 and processing application 252)
receive, from at least one of the plurality of user computing devices configured to communicate with the token storage device, a token request for at least one token to be stored on the token storage device; (see at least Bondesen ¶¶ 0029, 0031, 0042, and 0074-0075, the system receives a token request from a user, wherein the token request may be submitted via a mobile application, digital wallet, or online account, and may specify the number of tokens to be generated)
generate, upon receiving the token request, multiple tokens, each associated with a different user of the plurality of users associated with the token storage device, wherein each of the multiple tokens includes an associated set of user identification data for the corresponding respective different user; (see at least Bondesen ¶¶ 0029, 0042, and 0072-0075, an employer may submit a token request so that a single funding source may be used to distribute multiple tokens to one or more employees, and the user may request that multiple tokens be issued where a token is to be used by more than one person; Bondesen further teaches that the system may include a designator identifying the user associated with the token, such as the user’s initials or portions of the user’s employee ID)
transmit, to a respective user computing device of the plurality of user computing devices configured to communicate with the token storage device and associated with the respective user, a respective token of the multiple tokens; (see at least Bondesen ¶ 0042-0043 and 0062-0065, the token may be sent to the user via a mobile application such as a digital wallet, and where multiple tokens are issued the token may be sent to a lead user so that the lead user can disseminate the token to the appropriate users)
compare identification data entered into the respective user computing device to the sets of user identification data; and based on a result of the comparison indicating that one of the sets of user identification data matches the entered identification data, instruct the corresponding respective user computing device to transfer the respective token to the token storage device for use at a physical merchant location. (see at least Bondesen ¶¶ 0006-0008, 0092, and 0104, the system authenticates the selected token by comparing the token to stored token data, and where a match is found between the token and the stored token data the token is authenticated and the transaction is processed at a point of sale; see also ¶ 0033, where a single token may be tied to multiple user accounts and the user selects the account associated with the token to allocate the transaction)
Bondesen does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
a token storage device configured to communicate a payment token to a merchant point-of-sale terminal, wherein the token storage device is configured to communicate with a plurality of user computing devices each associated with a respective user of a plurality of users;
The Examiner provides Adams to teach the following limitation:
a token storage device configured to communicate a payment token to a merchant point-of-sale terminal, wherein the token storage device is configured to communicate with a plurality of user computing devices each associated with a respective user of a plurality of users; (see at least Adams col. 4, ll. 20-45 and claim 1, disclosing a portable, hand-held device having a memory storing a plurality of credentials, each credential associated with personnel data, and a plurality of distinct interfaces interacting with external credential-receiving systems, wherein the device presents a credential to an external credential-receiving system; Adams further discloses that more than one individual can be enrolled to a single device such that the device stores credentials for a plurality of users(see at least Adams col. 6 ll. 1-10))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the token-provisioning and multi-token generation system of Bondesen with the portable, multi-user credential storage device of Adams, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 2 and 12, the combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein the token storage device comprises a biometric sensor. (see at least Adams claim 1 and col. 4, ll. 18-30, disclosing that the portable device comprises a biometric sensor integrated on the device)
In regards to claims 4 and 14, the combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein the token storage device is configured to: receive candidate identification data, the candidate identification data being associated with a purchase transaction; compare the candidate identification data with sets of user identification data; identify, based on the comparison, the one set of user identification data entered into the respective user computing device as matching the candidate identification data; retrieve, as the respective token, a token of the multiple tokens associated with the identified one set of user identification data; and transmit the retrieved token to the merchant point-of-sale terminal to facilitate completing the purchase transaction. (see at least Adams col. 4, ll. 18-45 and claim 1, disclosing that the credentialing application executing on the device requests a credential from the memory based on input from the biometric sensor, selects one of the plurality of distinct interfaces, and presents the credential to an external credential-receiving system; see also the disclosed one-to-few biometric match used to release the holder’s credential from among the plurality of stored credentials)
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Adams discloses the following limitations:
wherein the token storage device is configured to receive the candidate identification data via a biometric sensor on the token storage device. (see at least Adams claim 1(a), (h) and col. 4, ll. 18-45, disclosing that the credential is requested from memory based on input from the biometric sensor integrated on the device)
In regards to claims 6 and 16, Adams discloses the following limitations:
wherein the token storage device is configured to receive the candidate identification data from a candidate user computing device. (see at least Adams col. 4, ll. 18-45, disclosing a plurality of distinct interfaces interacting with external systems by which identification input may be received; and Bondesen Figure 2, ¶ 0040, 0043, 0061, disclosing that a user’s mobile device provides transaction-related identification information to the system)
Claims 3, 7-8, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0254647 A1 to Bondesen et al. (“Bondesen”), in view of United States Patent No. 8,144,941 B2 to Adams et al. (“Adams”), in further view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0254653 A1 to Bondesen (“Bondesen1”)
In regards to claims 3 and 13, Bondesen does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the multiple tokens include a prepaid token, and wherein the TM server is configured to: electronically transfer first funds from a first payment account associated with a first user of the plurality of users onto the prepaid token; and electronically transfer second funds from a second payment account associated with a second user of the plurality of users onto the prepaid token such that the prepaid token includes a sum of the first and second funds.
The Examiner provides Bondesen1 to teach the following limitations:
wherein the multiple tokens include a prepaid token, and wherein the TM server is configured to: electronically transfer first funds from a first payment account associated with a first user of the plurality of users onto the prepaid token; and electronically transfer second funds from a second payment account associated with a second user of the plurality of users onto the prepaid token such that the prepaid token includes a sum of the first and second funds. (see at least Bondesen1 ¶¶ 0008)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by the combination of Bondesen and Adams, the teachings of Bondesen1 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Bondesen and Adams does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the multiple tokens include a budgeting token associated with a plurality of virtual budget accounts associated with the plurality of different users, wherein each virtual budget account associated with the budgeting token includes an associated set of user identification data from the sets of user identification data, and wherein the token storage device is configured to: receive candidate identification data, the candidate identification data being associated with a purchase transaction; compare the candidate identification data with the plurality of sets of user identification data; identify, based on the comparison, a virtual budget account associated with the one set of user identification data entered into the respective user computing device that matches the candidate identification data; and increment an actual budget associated with the identified virtual budget account by an amount of the purchase transaction
The Examiner provides Bondesen1 to teach the following limitations:
wherein the multiple tokens include a budgeting token associated with a plurality of virtual budget accounts associated with the plurality of different users, wherein each virtual budget account associated with the budgeting token includes an associated set of user identification data from the sets of user identification data, and wherein the token storage device is configured to: receive candidate identification data, the candidate identification data being associated with a purchase transaction; compare the candidate identification data with the plurality of sets of user identification data; identify, based on the comparison, a virtual budget account associated with the one set of user identification data entered into the respective user computing device that matches the candidate identification data; and increment an actual budget associated with the identified virtual budget account by an amount of the purchase transaction (Bondesen1 teaches a system and method of setting limits (budgets) on token use depending on the identified user/users and type of limits set. See at least Bondesen1 ¶¶ 0005-0006, 0008-0009, 0033, and 0036)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by the combination of Bondesen and Adams, the teachings of Bondesen1 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 8 and 18, the combination further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the token storage device is further configured to: compare the incremented actual budget to an expected budget for the identified virtual budget account. (Bondesen1 teaches a system and method of setting limits (budgets) on token use depending on the identified user/users and type of limits set, as well as adjusting limits. See at least Bondesen1 ¶¶ 0005-0006, 0008-0009, 0033, and 0036)
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0254647 A1 to Bondesen et al. (“Bondesen”), in view of United States Patent No. 8,144,941 B2 to Adams et al. (“Adams”), in further view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0254653 A1 to Bondesen (“Bodesen1”), in further view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 9-10 and 19-20, the combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein the token storage device is further configured to: generate a spending report based at least in part on the incremented actual budget and the expected budget; and transmit the spending report to at least one of the plurality of user computing devices. , wherein the token storage device is configured to: generate a notification message based on the comparison of the incremented actual budget to the expected budget; and transmit the notification message to at least one of the plurality of user computing devices. (see at least Bondesen ¶ 0093, disclosing that the system processes transactions and provides reports; and ¶¶ 0080, tracking transaction amounts against spending thresholds,)
Further The Examiner takes Official Notice that creating spending reports based on account activity and notifying users of the reports via notification is old and well known in the art, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by the combination the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights