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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 10/15/2025 is entered. Independent clams 1, 9, and 17 are currently amended. Claims 3, 13, and 19 are canceled. New claims 21-23 are added. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20-23 are pending for examination.
2. Interview Summary:
A telephone interview was conducted on 10/14/2025 at the request of the Applicant and the same amendment to the independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as presented in the amendment filed 10/15/2025, was discussed during the interview. Examiner interview summary is reproduced below:
“Issues Discussed:
35 U.S.C. 101 ;
Copy of interview agenda is attached for ready reference. Examiner indicated that the added limitations of periodically monitoring data and updating it relates to a mental process and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to "significantly More", because it does not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further subject matter was discussed which overcome 101 rejections. No agreement reached.
35 U.S.C. 103 Examiner indicated that new limitations would be subject to reconsideration and search.
Non-statutory Double Patenting Examiner indicated that suggested amendment may not over the Non-statutory Double Patenting rejection as similar data is cited in dependent claims 3 and 6 of the patent US 11935100 B2 . No agreement reached.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 22contains subject matter, “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” , which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed the originally filed Specification and this subject matter is not explicitly disclosed. Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/15/205 does not provide as how these newly added limitations are supported in the Applicant’s originally filed Specification.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,935,100 B2, hereinafter Patent’100. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as the comparison provided.
The highlighted limitations of claim 1 the instant application are covered and anticipated by the underlined limitations of the claims 1, 3, and 6, of the Patent’ 100, see below, and the highlighted limitations of claim 9 the instant application are covered and anticipated by the underlined limitations of the claim 9 of the Patent’ 100, see below.
Claim 1 of the instant Application:
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:
perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium;
populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score;
periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a current balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the current balance or expiration status; and
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.
Claim 9 of the instant Application:
9. (Currently Amended) A method for managing a database for stored value mediums, comprising:
performing, by a device, a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium;
populating, by the device, the database with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score;
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; and
communicating, 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6, and 9 of the US Patent# ‘100
1. 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:
receive an indication of information associated with a stored value medium associated with an entity, wherein the information includes a balance of resources associated with the stored value medium and an identifier of the stored value medium;
perform a risk analysis associated with the stored value medium to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium;
populate the data store with the information based on the risk score for the stored value medium, wherein the data store includes a table to link the information with an entity identifier of the entity associated with the stored value medium;
receive an indication of an exchange associated with the entity, wherein the exchange is associated with another medium that is distinct and separate from the stored value medium;
search the data store using the entity identifier to identify an aggregated balance of resources corresponding to a single account associated with the entity; and
communicate, with a backend system, to enable the exchange to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine an updated balance associated with the stored value medium after enabling the exchange to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources; and update an entry associated with the at least one stored value medium to reflect the updated balance of the stored value medium.
6. 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 an exchange has been completed using the aggregated balance of resources, or that an expiration date of the stored value medium has expired.
9. A method for managing a database for stored value mediums, comprising:
receiving, by a device, an indication of information associated with a stored value medium associated with an entity, wherein the information includes a balance of resources associated with the stored value medium and an identifier of the stored value medium;
performing a risk analysis associated with the stored value medium to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium;
populating, by the device, the database with the information based on the risk score for the stored value medium,
wherein the database includes a table to link the information associated with the stored value medium with an entity identifier of an entity associated with the stored value medium, the database identifying an aggregated balance of resources associated with the stored value medium;
receiving, by the device, an indication of an exchange associated with the entity; parsing, by the device, the database using the entity identifier associated with the entity to identify the aggregated balance of resources corresponding to an account associated with the entity; and
communicating, with a backend system associated with the exchange, to enable the exchange to be at least partially completed using the aggregated balance of resources based on searching the database to identify the aggregated balance of resources.
Examiner has reviewed the other independent claim 17 and its limitations, similar to claim 1 of the instant application are covered and anticipated by the claims 1, 3 and 6 and 17 of the patent# 100.
Examiner has also reviewed the dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 18 and 20 of the instant application and they are covered by the limitations of the dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 of the Patent’100.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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. 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 to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium;
(ii) populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score;
(iii) periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a current balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the current balance or expiration status; and
(iv) 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, “ perform a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium; populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score; periodically monitor a current balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the current balance or expiration status;” , under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps 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 can observe, evaluate and make simple opinions on the risk score, and add information related to the risk to the stored data and further monitor the data being collected to observe if all the money in the gift card is used up and if so can delete/remove all the stored information. 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 credit 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 to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium; (ii)populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium based on the risk score; (iii) periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a current balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the current balance or expiration status; and (iv)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) and (ii) 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 (iv) 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. 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 current balance if zero or expired which is updating the information and as already analyzed for claim1 is a mental process. The claim also recites implementing the step in real time, which is also a long-standing practice of using real time transaction processing before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of updating the information on the gift card, and as such does not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
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
5. 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.
5.1. Claims 1- 2, 4, 7-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackhurst et al. [US 20140101044 A1], hereinafter Blackhurst in view of Slaton et al. [US 20150304297 A1], hereinafter Slaton.
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:
Populate the data store with information associated with the stored value medium [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.”. The gift card in Blackhurst corresponds to the claimed stored value medium. Necessary information including the balance and an identifier of the gift card that it is a specific merchant [corresponds to the claimed entity ]gift card , the expiry date a user identifier and the merchant's name [entity identifier] is received. Blackhurst fails to teach performing a risk analysis associated with a stored value medium to obtain a risk score for the stored value medium and store this risk score information in the database. Slaton, in the similar field of performing an identity theft for online transactions performs risk analysis for an online credit card transaction [here the credit card corresponds to the claimed stored value medium] and calculates the risk score and is stored to alert the user [See Slaton 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. Here, the risk analysis is carried out associated with a credit card associated with an online transaction for a person and is stored for alerting the user]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Slaton, 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] and if the risk score is higher than a threshold /predetermined value it should be stored in the data store along with the other information stored, as discussed above, 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.
Blackhurst teaches to periodically monitor, by communicating with a backend system associated with the stored value medium, a current balance and expiration information of the stored value medium, and update or remove the information in the data store based on the current 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 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 Slaton 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 7, Blackhurst teaches that 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. Further, in claim 1 it was already discussed using a risk score if it meets a threshold or it is higher than a predetermined number in view of Slaton , and the same can relate to the exclusion rule in the system and method of Blackhurst., see above. . Thus, the combined teachings of Blackhurst and Slaton disclose and render obvious 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 (s) [gift card (s) in Blackhurst] or otherwise not.
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 a current 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 current 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 Slaton 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