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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Claims 3, 13, and 19 are previously canceled claims. Claims 1, 8, 22, 9, 17 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 2, 4-8, 21-23 depend from claim 1, claims 10-12, 14-16 depend from claim 9, and claims 18 and 20 depend from claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20-23--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 21-23 are to a system /apparatus, claims 9-12, 14-16 to a process comprising a series of steps, and clams 17-18 and 20 are to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A system for managing a data store for stored value mediums, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
(i) perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium by electronically analyzing information associated with the stored value medium, the information including at least one of entity information of an entity associated with the stored value medium, a transaction trend or pattern at the entity, a frequency of transactions at the entity, or expiration information associated with the stored value medium:
(ii) generate, based on the risk analysis, a risk score for the stored value medium, the risk score indicating a likelihood that the stored value medium is able to be used;
(iii) populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score;
(iv) periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status; and
(v) communicate, with a backend system, to enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations of claim 1 comprising, “ (i) perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium by analyzing information associated with the stored value medium, the information including at least one of entity information of an entity associated with the stored value medium, a transaction trend or pattern at the entity, a frequency of transactions at the entity, or expiration information associated with the stored value medium: (ii)generate, based on the risk analysis, a risk score for the stored value medium, the risk score indicating a likelihood that the stored value medium is able to be used; (iii) populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score; (iv)periodically monitor, by communicating with a system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status; and (v) enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the one or more processors” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected of a stored value medium such as of a gift card and analyzing the same to calculate a risk score based on the analysis of information of a person owning the gift card, his transaction patterns, frequency of some specific purchase/transactions, and on knowing the amount and expiry date of the gift card and add information related to the risk to the stored data and further monitor the stored data of the gift card by personally communicating with the issuer of the gift card to collect all the information of the gift card including the balance, expiration date, and accordingly can update or remove information from the stored data. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2, 4-8, 21-23 recite “Mental Processes”.
The highlighted limitations of claim 1 comprising, “ enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium. “ under their broadest reasonable interpretation, amount to making a payment for a transaction using the available resources that is the amount available on a gift card [stored value medium] and fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as reciting “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract ideas. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 with their dependent claims 2, 4-8, 21-23, 10-12, 14-16, and 18, and 20 recite these abstract ideas. Under circumstances where the claim recites more than one types of abstract ideas, , however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps (1), (ii), fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, and step (iii) falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations in all the three steps (i), (ii), and (iii) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: 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 or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising generic processors in communication with other generic computer devices and implementing the steps (i)perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium by electronically analyzing information associated with the stored value medium, the information including at least one of entity information of an entity associated with the stored value medium, a transaction trend or pattern at the entity, a frequency of transactions at the entity, or expiration information associated with the stored value medium: (ii)generate, based on the risk analysis, a risk score for the stored value medium, the risk score indicating a likelihood that the stored value medium is able to be used; (iii) populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score; (iv) periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status; and (v) communicate, with a backend system, to enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium.
“. In limitations of steps (i), (ii), (iii) , (iv) and (v)) the computer processor(s) is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations in step (v) communicate to enable exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium, which amounts to facilitating completion of a transaction using balances on a stored value of medium [corresponds to amount of money available on a credit card] which does not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general purpose computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to abstract idea.
Examiner has reviewed the dependent claims 2, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18 and 20. “They recite limitations merely expanding the scope of the limitations recited in their base claims including limitations receiving data, transmitting data, making certain determinations, updating balances, identifying data/information and displaying data directed to insignificant extra-solution activities, mental processes and steps which do not recite inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually. As such the limitations in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.” The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 21, the use of a trained machine learning model in performing risk score is used in a nominal manner for performing an abstract idea of performing a risk analysis on collected data of a plurality of stored value mediums , such as gift cards. The trained machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learning model functions and do not include any details about how the ““analyzing of a risk score” are accomplished and provides an improvement in computer functioning. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained machine learning model also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions “ performing a risk score using a trained machine learning model” , this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (trained machine learning model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Reference claim 23, it recites using a relational database for linking data with each other presented in a tabular form which is a long-standing practice of using before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in functioning of a relational database, and as such does not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Reference claim 22, the limitations are directed to removing information from stored data such as balance in gift card based on if resource balance is zero or expired which is updating the information and as already analyzed for claim1 is a mental process.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20-23 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: 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. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20-23 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements directed to the limitations of communicating information on the balance of the stored value medium to conduct an exchange transaction, receiving request, transmitting data, displaying data and storing data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Further the use of trained machine learning model for performing a risk score, or using relational database or for linking data with each other presented in a tabular form and communicating in real time is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20-23 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, pending claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20-23 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3.1. Claims 1- 2, 4, 8-12, 14, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst et al. [US 20140101044 A1], hereinafter Blackhurst in view of Ramsey et al. [US 20060178982 A1], hereinafter Ramsey.
Regarding claim 1, Blackhurst teaches a system for managing a data store for stored value mediums, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories [See Fig.2 system “230” connected to a user’s device 240 and paras 0068—0069 and 0076—0080], configured to:
See Blackhurst para 0057, “ Receiving information associated with the gift card comprises at least one of receiving an image of the gift card, ……..The system may process the image to extract various information associated with the card. Information associated with the card may include an identification code (e.g., card number) associated with the gift card, an amount of the gift card, a merchant associated with the gift card, type of purchases for which the card can and/or cannot be used, expiry date of the card, authentication credentials (e.g., personal identification PIN code) associated with the card, periodic transaction assessment associated with the card, a name of the user assigned to the gift card, types of purchases that qualify for purchases associated with the gift card, or the like. “, but fails to teach to perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium and generate, based on the risk analysis, a risk score for the stored value medium, the risk score indicating a likelihood that the stored value medium is able to be used. Ramsey, in the similar field of performing a risk score based on analyzing the user’s teaches the missing limitations from the Blackhurst reference, see paras 0002, 0004, 0005 , “ 002] The present invention relates to an RDBMS-based, computerized method, system, and program product for analyzing large volumes of transactions, such as purchasing patterns of goods and services, repair orders, inventory actions involving spare parts or merchandise, detecting anomalous transactions including potentially fraudulent transactions, possible instances of identity theft, …… automatic teller machine processing, credit card processing, portfolio management, and inventory management, all across multiple customers and sites. [0004] Numerous businesses process large numbers of transactions, including purchases of goods and services, ….. bank account deposits and withdrawals, automatic teller machine transaction processing, credit card and debit card transactions, investment portfolio transactions (such as securities long sales and short sales, securities purchases, and margin account transactions), …….. The number of transactions per customer, the number of customers, the sequence of transactions, the frequency of transactions, and the magnitude of total transactions can show subtle relationships, predict events, and conceal various anomalous transactions, including fraud…….., credit worthiness problems, and identity theft. [0005] For example, a credit card company may create a risk score or a fraud score for a customer based on an analysis of that customer's usage of the credit card during a finite period, such as sixty or ninety days. Since different typical customers may have used their credit cards different numbers of times during the sixty or ninety days, the actual number of transactions for a specific customer will not be known in advance. It is frequently necessary to capture a customer's transaction history, for example, to derive a risk score, or to detect an anomalous set of transactions, for entry into an RDBMS, for subsequent access and use by other applications or processes.”. These excerpts from Ramsey teach calculating a risk score for credit card user, based on an analysis of the user’s data associated with the credit card, credit history, transaction patterns, frequency of transactions so as to indicate if the specific gift card can be used or not . Therefore, in view of the teachings of Ramsey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackhurst to incorporate the concept performing a risk analysis associated with the gift card [stored value medium] based on the received and stored information associated with the stored value medium [gift card] because, as taught in Ramsey, such risk score information is stored in a database [RDBMS to be used for use in any other transactions disclosed in Blackhurst, and secondly, 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.
The combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey teach to populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score [See para 0169, “ The database described herein comprises a list of aliases and a list of gift cards associated with each alias in the list of aliases. The system receives the database (or information to be input into the database) from the financial institution associated with the account (and/or from a merchant as sociated with the gift card). Therefore, the database comprises a database record for each alias and a database record for each gift card associated with each alias. The database record for each gift card may comprise any information associated with a gift card as described herein. As described herein, information associated with the card may include ....a merchant or merchant category associated with the gift card, type of purchases for which the card can and/or cannot be used, expiry date of the card, authentication credentials (e.g., personal identification PIN code) associated with the card, periodic transaction assessment associated with the card, a name of the user assigned to the gift card, or the like.”. ], and as, analyzed above in view of Ramsey, the risk score is stored in the database
Blackhurst teaches to periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status” [See Blackhurst paras, 0005, 0112 and 0115, “ [0005], “ the module is configured to add information associated with the gift card to the updated transaction information prior to transmitting the updated information, wherein the information associated with the gift card comprises an updated balance of the gift card after applying the balance of the gift card to the amount of the transaction.0112…… the system may be configured to transmit the information to the entity periodically (e.g., every few days). ….. determining that the gift card balance is less than, equal to, or greater than a predetermined balance level,..”, and [0115] Information associated with the gift card may include at least one of an identification code (e.g., card number) associated with the gift card, an original value of the gift card, a current balance of the gift card, ……, expiry date of the card, authentication credentials (e.g., personal identification PIN code) associated with the card, periodic transaction assessment associated with the card, a name of the user assigned to the gift card, types of purchases that qualify for purchases associated with the gift card, a date of a last purchase that qualified for payment using the gift card, a date when the gift card was associated with the account, a transaction history associated with the gift card (e.g., purchases made using gift card funds), or the like.”; “[0165]… The system is additionally configured to update the transaction information,…….. the updated transaction information may include updated information associated with the gift card (e.g., an updated gift card balance ….. The updated amount of a gift card is a reduced amount. For example, the original transaction amount may be $100. The balance of the gift card may be $50. Therefore, after the balance of the gift card is applied to the original transaction amount, the updated transaction amount is $50. The updated gift card amount is zero. The system transmits the updated transaction information (including the updated transaction amount of $50) to another entity (e.g., a financial institution) on the transaction processing path. ). These excerpts teach monitoring the gift card transactions and amount balance periodically and update the same, such as a with a frequency of few days so that the current or updated resource balance could be applied to a transaction. Blackhurst also teaches that the information stored also includes an expiry date and therefore if expiration occurs the updated information is to include that information. Note: The limitations in claim “or remove the information in the data store” is recited as an alternative to the limitation of uploading the information in the data store based on the balance status and since Blackhurst teaches updating the balance information by periodically monitoring the balance information, the teachings of Blackhurst reads on the limitations.
Blackhurst further teaches to communicate, with a backend system, to enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium [see paras 0005, 0053—0054 and para 0022 “A transaction is executed by a user using a payment method associated with the account. ……. The payment method comprises at least one of a payment card payment, an electronic funds transfer, or a mobile device payment. The payment methods are not limited to those described herein…….[0054] Applying funds associated with the gift card to the transaction comprises determining whether an amount of the transaction is greater than an amount associated with the gift card. If the amount associated with the transaction is not greater than (e.g., less than or equal to) the amount associated with the gift card, the funds associated with the gift card are applied to the transaction. Consequently, the gift card balance is reduced. If the amount associated with the transaction is greater than the amount associated with the gift card, the funds associated with the gift card are applied to the transaction, and general funds (e.g., non-gift card funds) associated with the account are applied to the remainder of the transaction. Therefore, the gift card balance is reduced to zero. Thus, when the transaction amount is greater than the available gift card funds (or when the user wishes to pay for a transaction using both gift card funds and general funds), the present invention enables a user to execute a single payment transaction for using both gift card funds and general funds.”, and para 0022” [0022] In some embodiments, the gift card comprises multiple gift cards, and applying the balance of the gift card comprises: applying a balance of a merchant-specific gift card to the amount of the transaction, “].These excerpts disclose receiving an indication for exchange that is a transaction for purchase with a merchant using a payment resource which could be any type of payment including a payment card payment [stored value medium]. See paras 0048, 0177 and 0180 teach that the entity is a merchant, and the merchant-specific gift card is associated with the identity of the merchant as linked by a profile of user’s account: 0048….. “the entity may be the merchant (e.g., the merchant that issued the gift card”). 0177: “….a gift card may be associated with a user's profile (or loyalty card) associated with a merchant. …... When the user uses a payment vehicle to make a payment, the payment terminal or system described herein (e.g., associated with the merchant, ….) extracts the user's identification information (e.g., name, identification code, alias, or the like) from the payment vehicle and accesses the user's profile to determine whether any gift cards (e.g., with a positive balance) can be applied to the user's transaction.”, and 0180, “ ….a rule established by the issuer may be that the gift card is applied to the transaction based on the payment vehicle or method used by the user. …..As a further example, if the user pays via debit (e.g., a debit card), one or more gift cards may be applied to the transaction (e.g., applied to the transaction by the acquirer or the issuer. The gift cards or credit cards correspond to stored value medium).
Regarding claim 2, Blackhurst teaches that the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to a user device a user interface for display by the user device, wherein the user interface enables the one or more processors to receive data associated with the stored value medium and to link the data associated with the stored value medium to an entity identifier [See Blackhurst Figs 3-7 and associated text para 0083 disclose presenting a user interface to a user’s device wherein information on a merchant-specific gift card is provided and the user’s account with the merchant is used to link the gift card information to the entity/merchant , see Paras 0048, 0177 and 0180 cited above for claim 1 describe that the gift card [stored value medium] ] is merchant-specific.
Regarding claim 4, combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above. Blackhurst teaches that system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from a user device, a request associated with current information associated with the stored value medium; identify the current information associated with the stored value medium [See para 0084, “At block 830, the method comprises transmitting a redemption request to an entity, the redemption request for redeeming funds associated with the gift card. At block 840, the method comprises receiving funds associated with the gift card from the entity (e.g., based on selling the gift card to the entity). Funds associated with the gift card may comprise credit, debit, or the like. As used herein, receiving funds associated with the gift card enables the system to provide a credit associated with the received amount to the user. This credit is visible to the user as the amount associated with the gift card (may also be referred to as gift card funds); , wherein the current information includes a balance associated with the stored value medium after enabling the exchange to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources [see paras 0002, and 0050-0051 as already discussed for claim 1]; and transmit, to the user device, a user interface for display by the user device that indicates the current information associated with the stored value medium [See Figs 6-7 and as already discussed for claim 2 above. Blackhurst fails to disclose that an updated balance is displayed to the user after exchange/transaction is executed. Since Blackhurst already teaches updating the balance after a transaction/exchange [see para 0005, “ the module is configured to add information associated with the gift card to the updated transaction information prior to transmitting the updated information, wherein the information associated with the gift card comprises an updated balance of the gift card after applying the balance of the gift card to the amount of the transaction.”], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Blackhurst and Slaton to incorporate the concept of displaying the updated balance to the user as well because it would help him to know the updated balance in the gift-card for future transactions.
Regarding claim 8, Blackhurst teaches that the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the backend system to enable the exchange to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources, are configured to: transmit, to the backend system associated with the exchange, an indication of at least one of the identifiers associated with at least one of the stored value mediums; receive, from the backend system, an indication of at least one of: that the at least one stored value medium is valid, or the resource balance of the at least one of the stored value mediums; and communicate, with the backend system, to at least partially complete the exchange using an amount of resources indicated by at least one of: the at least one stored value medium being valid, or the resource balance of the at least one stored value medium [See paras 0056 and 0057 which disclose executing a transaction/exchange partially [see para 0056] and in order to do that the system receives card information from the user of the gift card [stored value medium] including the card number [see para 0057] and in response receiving the valid amount to be used for partially completing the exchange/transaction [see para 0056].
Regarding claims 9-10, since their limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 1-2, and 7, they are analyzed as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey established for claims 1-2 above, except for the limitations of claim 9, “ wherein the database comprises at least one table that links the information associated with the stored value medium to at least one of: a user identifier of a user associated with the stored value medium, a card identifier of a card associated with the user, or an entity identifier of an entity associated with the stored value medium”, which Blackhurst teaches and renders obvious as describes in paras 0034, 0079 and 0080 ‘ [0034]…..The system may process the image to extract various information associated with the card. Information associated with the card may include an identification code (e.g., card number) associated with the gift card, an amount of the gift card, a merchant associated with the gift card, type of purchases for which the card can and/or cannot be used, expiry date of the card, authentication credentials (e.g., personal identification PIN code) associated with the card, periodic transaction assessment associated with the card, a name of the user assigned to the gift card, types of purchases that qualify for purchases associated with the gift card, or the like.. …..[0079]…. …. the system application 237, the memory 236 also includes the datastore 238. …… the datastore 238 stores information or data described herein…….[0080] It will be understood that the datastore 238 may include any one or more storage devices, including, but not limited to, datastores, databases, and/or any of the other storage devices typically associated with a computer system. It will also be understood that the datastore 238 may store information in any known way, such as, for example, by using one or more computer codes and/or languages, alphanumeric character strings, data sets, figures, tables, charts, links, ……... …… the datastore 238 may include information associated with one or more applications, such as, …… the datastore 238 provides a substantially real-time representation of the information stored therein, so that, for example, when the processor 234 accesses the datastore 238, the information stored therein is current or substantially current.”
Regarding claim 11, Blackhurst teaches that the method of claim 10, further comprising: determining an offer for the stored value medium based on the risk score; transmitting, to the user device, an indication of the offer; and receiving, from the user device, an indication that the offer has been [see paras 0118—0119 and paras 0124 and 0126. Paras 0118-0119 teaches that the system provides an indication of an offer determined by an entity based on gif-card balance which can be accepted or rejected by the user , but if he accepts/activates the offer , the offer is automatically associated with the user’s account. Paras 0124 and 0126 teach considering a threshold of risk score such as a credit score of the user to be allowed to be provided with a stored value medium [gift card in Blackhurst] or otherwise not.
Regarding claim 12, Blackhurst teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein the database is linked with the entity associated with the stored value medium and indicates information associated with multiple stored value mediums, wherein the multiple stored value mediums are associated with multiple users [see para 0169, “ The database described herein comprises a list of aliases and a list of gift cards associated with each alias in the list of aliases. The system receives the database (or information to be input into the database) from the financial institution associated with the account (and/or from a merchant associated with the gift card). Therefore, the database comprises a database record for each alias and a database record for each gift card associated with each alias. The database record for each gift card may comprise any information associated with a gift card as described herein. As described herein, information associated with the card may include an identification code (e.g., card number) associated with the gift card, an amount or balance of the gift card, a merchant or merchant category associated with the gift card, type of purchases for which the card can and/or cannot be used, expiry date of the card, authentication credentials (e.g., personal identification PIN code) associated with the card, periodic transaction assessment associated with the card, a name of the user assigned to the gift card, or the like”. The multiple gift-cards in Blackhurst correspond the claimed multiple stored value mediums, wherein the multiple stored value mediums are associated with multiple users and their information is stored in a database linked with a merchant, which corresponds to the claimed entity term.
Regarding claim 14, Blackhurst teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein the data store comprises a first data base, and wherein the method further: identifying an indication to update the information associated with at least one of the stored value mediums included in a second database [ see Blackhurst paras 0003—0007 which disclose that after a transaction/exchange is executed the system updates the balance in the gift-card/stored value mediums and as well the database records are updated and the indication of updated balance is also transmitted to a financial institution associated with the user’s account
Regarding claim 16, Blackhurst teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein communicating with the backend system to enable the exchange to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources comprises: communicating, with the backend system, to at least partially complete the exchange using resources associated with multiple stored value mediums that include the stored value medium, wherein the multiple stored value mediums are associated with the entity and wherein information associated with the stored value mediums is stored in the database [It was already discussed in the analysis of claim 1 that Blackhurst teaches enabling the exchange to be at least partially completed using the resources associated with the stored value medium and further teaches using multiple stored gift-cards [stored value mediums] to complete an exchange/ transaction, see paras 0022 “the gift card comprises multiple gift cards, and applying the balance of the gift card comprises: applying a balance of a merchant-specific gift card to the amount of the transaction, in response to determining the amount of the transaction is still not zero, applying a balance of a category-specific gift card to the amount of the transaction, and in response to determining the amount of the transaction is still not zero, applying a balance of a generic gift card to the amount of the transaction.”, and para 0047, “ the present invention enables a user to associate a gift card with a user's account (e.g., a financial institution account). The invention enables the user to efficiently use the funds associated with a gift card. Additionally, the invention enables a user to utilize funds associated with multiple gift cards using a single payment method (e.g., an electronic or physical payment card associated with the user's account). It was already discussed that gift-cards are stored in a database, see para 0169.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, since their limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 1-2, and 8, they are analyzed as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey based on same analysis established for claims 1-2 and 7 8 above.
3.2. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst in view of Ramsey in view of Panchamgam et al. [US 20170068962 A1], hereinafter Panchamgam.
Regarding claim 5, combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above. Blackhurst teaches that the system of claim 1, wherein the data store comprises a first data store, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify an indication to update the information associated with at least one of the stored value mediums included in a second data store; and update an entry included in the second data store, the entry being associated with the information associated with at least one of the stored value medium, wherein updating the entry includes modifying information indicated by the entry or removing the entry from the second data store [ see Blackhurst paras 0003—0007 which disclose that after a transaction/exchange is executed the system updates the balance in the gift-card/stored value mediums and as well the database records are updated and the indication of updated balance is also transmitted to a financial institution associated with the user’s account.], but fails to disclose that the updated entry associated with the stored value medium is stored in a second data store. Panchamgam, in the same field of storing loyalty variables in different data structures, teaches storing historical loyalty variables in a first database and predictors for each loyalty variables in a second database [see claim 1]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Panchamgam it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the of the applicant’s invention to have modified the teachings of Blackhurst in view of Ramsey to incorporate the concept of storing the updated information of the stored value medium(s) in a second database other than the first database, as shown in Panchamgam storing loyalty variable predictors in a second data structure different from the first data structure where the historical values of loyalty variables are stored, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Blackhurst teaches that the system of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors, to identify the indication to update the information, are configured to: identify at least one of: that the exchange has been at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources, that then exchange has been completed using the aggregated balance of resources, or that an expiration date of the stored value medium has expired [see para 0052, “ The gift card may or may not have an expiry date. If the gift card has an expiry date, funds associated with the gift card may not be utilized after the expiry date for any transactions executed by the user. If the system redeems the entire amount (or a partial amount) of the gift card prior to the expiry date (and prior to any transactions that qualify for the gift card), the redeemed amount of gift card funds may be available to the user even after the expiry date of the gift card”].
3.3. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst in view of Ramsey in view of Slaton et al. [already cited in the earlier office actions], hereinafter Slaton.
Regarding claim 7, Blackhurst in view of Ramsey teaches and renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the risk score indicates a risk level associated with enabling exchanges that are not associated with the stored value medium to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources; and wherein the one or more processors, to populate the data store, are configured to: populate the data store with the information based on the risk score satisfying a threshold; or transmit an indication that the at least one stored value medium cannot be stored in the data store if the risk score does not satisfy the threshold [ See paras 0124-0126, “0124] The offer is transmitted to the user (and/or the gift card is issued to the user's account in process flow 1500) based on the user not being excluded by at least one user exclusion rule and the merchant not being excluded by at least one merchant exclusion rule. The at least one user exclusion rule comprises at least one of an affinity exclusion rule, a risk exclusion rule, or an account exclusion rule, ……..[0125] As used herein, a user exclusion rule is a rule that excludes some users from receiving offers. …[0126] In some embodiments, the at least one user exclusion rule comprises a risk exclusion rule. Therefore, if a user is determined to be a risky user (e.g., has a credit score lower than a predetermined threshold), the user is excluded from receiving an offer. Blackhurst in view of Ramsey fails to teach that risk score is stored if it satisfies a threshold and if not a communication is sent that it cannot be stored. Slaton, in the similar field of performing an identity theft for online transactions perform risk analysis for an online card transaction [stored value medium transaction] and calculates the risk score and is stored to alert the user via SMS if the risk score is higher [which corresponds to if the risk score does not satisfy a threshold] , see para 0064, “ the identity theft solutions provider 812 may perform an identity theft risk score analysis based on various criteria, such as, e.g., the degree of compromise of the person's identity in an online credit card transaction. The identity theft solutions provider 812 then sends the user an alert, e.g., in the form of a SMS message to the mobile device 156, if the risk score is higher than a predetermined number.”.
Regarding claim 15, its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 7, it is analyzed as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Blackhurst , Ramsey and Slaton on the same basis established for claim 7 above.
3.4. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst in view of Ramsey in view of KR 102042442 B1, hereinafter KR’442.
Regarding claim 21, combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 1 including performing a risk analysis and obtaining a risk score, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose wherein the risk analysis is performed using a machine learning model trained on historical transaction data associated with a plurality of stored value mediums. KR’442 teaches using a machine learning model for performing a risk analysis and determining a risk score, see page 5 “ Each analysis module 321-324 determines one or more customer risk indices and / or one or more transaction risk indices from customer information and / or transaction information received in the transmission / reception module 300 and generates a scenario based on the determined indicators. ………. That is, each analysis module (321-324) is determined through the machine learning realized by the information processing module 310 to determine the indicators for financial transaction risk assessment, select risk target transactions based on the risk indicator data, An operation such as calculating a risk score by assigning a weight to each risk indicator may be performed. …… …… Transaction risk analysis module 322 is a database of transaction-related information, such as the user's deposit and withdrawal transaction history and the fintech operator's deposit and withdrawal transaction history through the fintech service, and based on the transaction date and time, amount, This is to derive transaction risk index through pattern analysis on frequency. In addition, the transaction risk analysis module 322 may be linked with the legacy system of the financial company to obtain transaction information.”; Therefore, in view of the teachings of KR’442 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Blackhurst in view of Ramsey to incorporate the concept that the risk analysis is performed using a machine learning model trained on historical transaction data associated with a plurality of stored value mediums, because , as shown in KR’442, it would help to derive transaction risk score through pattern analysis on frequency and secondly, 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.
3.5. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst in view of Ramsey in view of Mujeebuddin [ US 2022/0277293 A1].
Regarding claim 22, with reference its limitations, “ The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to automatically remove information associated with the stored value medium from the data store in real time when the current balance is zero or the expiration information indicates that the stored value medium is expired, but fails to disclose”; combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 1 including performing a risk analysis and obtaining a risk score and obtaining current balance by periodically monitoring information on the stored value medium [gift card] and also the expiry date , as analyzed above, but fails to disclose to automatically remove information associated with the stored value medium from the data store in real time when the current balance is zero or the expiration information indicates that the stored value medium is expired. Mujeebuddin, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches automatically remove information associated with the stored value medium from the data store in real time when the current balance is zero or the expiration information indicates that the stored value medium is expired ; see paras 0013, 0024, [“[0013]…… The system may maintain a database of gift cards and may actively monitor and/or update the database (e.g., removing expired gift cards and/or updating balances of gift cards). T…..[0024]……. the first client device may transmit to the card exchange system, an updated balance of the unwanted gift card or an indication that the balance of the gift card is zero (e.g., indicating that the gift card has no value and should no longer be made available to other users”]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Mujeebuddin it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Blackhurst in view of Ramsey to incorporate the concept that to automatically remove information associated with the stored value medium from the data store in real time when the current balance is zero or the expiration information indicates that the stored value medium is expired, because the expired gift card has no value and therefore no need to occupy storage capacity in the system, and secondly, 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.
3.6. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst in view of Ramsey in view of Moore et al. [US 20140033292A1]; hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 23, with reference its limitations, “ The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to automatically remove information associated with the stored value medium from the data store in real time when the current balance is zero or the expiration information indicates that the stored value medium is expired, but fails to disclose”; combined teachings of Blackhurst and Ramsey teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 1 including a data store is a database comprising at least one table that links the information associated with the stored value medium with at least one of: a user identifier of a user associated with the stored value medium, a card identifier of a card associated with the user, or an entity identifier of an entity associated with the stored value medium as described in Blackhurst paras 0034, 0079 and 0080 and cited above for claim 9, but fails to disclose that it is a relational database. Moore, in the same filed of using a relational database in the field of credit cards teaches providing a relation database including a table with links that provides links with each other data fields such as linking a user identifier with user ID [see Moore paras 0026 and 0049, “ [0026]………. In certain embodiments, user accounts 146 may be stored in one or more text files, tables in a relational database, or any other suitable data structure capable of storing information” ….[0046]……. User accounts information 200 can be stored in a text file, a table in a relational database, ….. capable of storing information. Moreover, the data relationships depicted are also for illustrative purposes only. For example, a particular ratio between data elements may be illustrated for example purposes only. ……… In the illustrated example, records 210 are example entries of user accounts information 200 where each record 210 corresponds to a particular user 102.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Moore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Blackhurst in view of Ramsey to incorporate the concept of using a relational database including a table linking data fields such as gift card [stored value medium] balance with the ither fields such as the user name/identifier, etc., 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.
Response to Arguments
4.1.. Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive that the current amendments to the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection and it is withdrawn.
4.2.. Rejection of claim 22 under 35 USC 112(a);
In view of the current amendment to claim 12, its rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is now moot and withdrawn.
4.3. Rejection of claims under 5 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 19-20, filed with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new reference Ramsey.
4.4 Rejection under 35 USC 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026, see pages 11-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14 that the claims do not recite an Abstract idea, because as per Step 2A, Prong One, the claims do “set forth” and “describe” an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong One part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations, ““ (i) perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium by analyzing information associated with the stored value medium, the information including at least one of entity information of an entity associated with the stored value medium, a transaction trend or pattern at the entity, a frequency of transactions at the entity, or expiration information associated with the stored value medium: (ii)generate, based on the risk analysis, a risk score for the stored value medium, the risk score indicating a likelihood that the stored value medium is able to be used; (iii) populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score; (iv)periodically monitor, by communicating with a system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status; and (v) enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, as detailed in paragraph 2 above. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Further, the limitations comprising, “ enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium. “ relate to making a payment for a transaction using the available resources that is the amount available on a gift card [stored value medium] and fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims do recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, that the “ The claims are integrated into a Practical Application”, because the Step 2A, Prong Two part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1, considered exemplary, recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising generic processors in communication with other generic computer devices and implementing the steps (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) . In steps “ (i)perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium by electronically analyzing information associated with the stored value medium, the information including at least one of entity information of an entity associated with the stored value medium, a transaction trend or pattern at the entity, a frequency of transactions at the entity, or expiration information associated with the stored value medium: (ii)generate, based on the risk analysis, a risk score for the stored value medium, the risk score indicating a likelihood that the stored value medium is able to be used; (iii) populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score; (iv) periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status; and (v) enable an exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium”, the computer processor(s) is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in step (v) communicate to enable exchange to be at least partially completed using an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to the information associated with the stored value medium, which amounts to facilitating completion of a transaction using balances on a stored value of medium [corresponds to amount of money available on a credit card] which does not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general purpose computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to abstract idea.
In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s arguments on pages 4-15 are not persuasive, and the claims , as drafted and analyzed in detail in paragraph 2 above, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-18, that the “ The claims provide an inventive concept”, because the limitations, “performing a risk analysis…..”, “populating the data store…, and “ populating the data store…..” , as analyzed per Step 2A, Prong One recite “Mental Processes” and the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations, “communicating……to enable an exchange …using aggregated balance of resources…, under their broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to mere implementing a commercial transaction of using the values in the stored value medium such as a gift card and does not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general purpose computer.
In claim 21, the use of a machine learning model for performing a risk analysis is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the Machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “ analyzing the information to detect risk and then calculate a risk score and do not include any details about how the “ “analyzing” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Specification support the claimed operations, see paragraphs ([0021]-[0025], [0050]-[0056]) which describe an information-management workflow rather than a technical improvement to computer functionality. MPEP § 2106.06 and Enfish can support eligibility where the claim improves database technology itself, but here the claim is primarily about using the data store to manage stored value medium information and enable exchanges. The claim includes computer components and backend communication, yet the improvement appears focused on business handling of stored value mediums rather than on a specific technical architecture.
The additional monitoring language does not clearly supply an inventive concept. The claim recites “periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a resource balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the resource balance or expiration status,” but the Specification at [0051]-[0052] describes this as merely periodically checking the balance and updating the record amounting to routine database maintenance. Under MPEP § 2106.05, mere generic data maintenance and communication generally do not amount to significantly more absent a specific technological improvement.
Applicant’s comparison to DDR is not persuasive. IN DDR the patent at issue dealt with a problem unique to the Internet comprising Internet users visiting one web site might be interested in viewing products sold on a different web site, but the owners of the first web site did not want to constantly redirect users away from their web site to a different web site. The claimed solution used a series of steps that created a hybrid web page incorporating “look and feel” elements from the host web site with commerce objects from the third-party web site. The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement. The patent claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, and instead, as analyzed above, are focused on business handling of stored value mediums rather than on a specific technical architecture including and mere generic data maintenance and communication. So, DDR has no applicability.
In view o the foregoing, rejection of pending claims under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL references:
(i) . E. Turkson, E. Y. Baagyere and G. E. Wenya, "A machine learning approach for predicting bank credit worthiness," 2016 Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR), Lodz, Poland, 2016, pp. 1-7 retrieved from IP. COM on 04092026 describes, see page 81 ,banks implementing data mining to extract knowledge on data patterns of the users to evaluate risk and identify a risk score and also using the features such as occupation, age, marital status, salary range/amount of equity, credit history, etc. is an important step that banks go through before giving credit to customers.
(ii) Article, “ Allowing Maximal Online Usage Of Gift Cards”; publication Date 2015-Mar-24; Country Undisclosed; Publishing Source The IP.com Journal; Publishing Venue IP.com PAD; Language English (United States) retrieved from IP. Com on 11/25/2025 cited in the Final Rejection mailed 12/02/2025 ; hereinafter GiftCards, teaches monitoring [which can include periodically or active] of the Gift cards [[corresponds to the store value medium] describes allowing users to purchase products using gift cards and monitoring their balance and expiration information [ See the one p[age article, “ Maximal Online Usage Of Gift Cards E-commerce allows purchasing of products displayed on websites by manually selecting desired products, such that products are paid for by financial information stored on a website server and subsequently products are shipped to user preferred locations. The stores information service, based on the user’s entry of all information of a gift card including card number, total money value, card expiry date and type of the card, automatically selects an appropriate product that matches with a complete value of the user's gift card(s), or at least a nearly complete value. The store service continuously monitors continuously monitored and matched with various products that are available for sale on various websites. When a match is determined, the method and system automatically selects one or more products and processes the payment without requiring any user intervention. The method and system notifies the user to minimally exceed the value of gift card(s) so that the minimally exceeded value of the gift card(s) is matched with the cost of any product available on a website, allowing complete usage of the gift card(s), without wasting any left-over money value in the card(s). The article describes that the process can be executed by an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects with a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
(iii) Nagula et al. [US 2019/0213623 A1; see para 0016 and 0070] describes analyzing a plurality of transactions related to credit/debit card data, wherein each transaction includes information of a customer ID, time periods when purchases occurred, items decryption, type of merchants, one of a plurality of spending levels, and performing sequence pattern mining on the transactions to determine a spending category of items so that coupons can be issued for that category of item at a predicted time.
(iv) Clore [US 20030074290 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/30/2025; see para 0056] describes performing a risk analysis on customer’s financial history including a risk assessment on the status of the customer’s credit card account and based upon that an approval for repayment can be denied.
(v) Wisniewski et al. [US 20110295744A1 cited the IDS filed 12/19/2023 and also in the Non-Final Rejection of the parent application 17/302,216 mailed 07/14/2023; see para 0010] discloses that balances from multiple merchant specific cards can be aggregated to the balance of the universal gift card in a similar manner to further increase the balance of the universal gift card so that the owner of the universal gift card can then use the aggregated balance to purchase an item from a participating merchant.
Foreign reference:
(vi) GB 2406185 cited the IDS filed 12/19/2023 and also in the Non-Final Rejection of the parent application 17/302,216 mailed 07/14/2023; discloses first storage means for storing at least one value identifier associated with a monetary value; second storage means for storing at least one on-line account record, said at least one stored on-line account record including an account record identifier and an account balance; first input means for receiving a value identifier, second input means for receiving an account record identifier, and control means for transferring a monetary value associated with said at least one stored value identifier to an account balance of said at least one stored on- line account record responsive to a match between a received value identifier and said at least one stored value identifier, and a received account record identifier and said at least one stored on-line account record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
YOGESH C. GARG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights