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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on November 30, 2023.
Claims 1-29 have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claims 3-8 and 10-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3:
Line 3, “the progress” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, line 5, “the point” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6:
Line 2, “the installation” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10:
Line 4, “the issuer” and “the card” lack proper antecedent basis.
Line 6, delete “for” before “strong”.
Line 16, insert --for-- after “module”.
Line 20, delete “such”.
Claim 15:
Line 2, “the progress” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, line 6, “the point” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19:
Line 4, replace “such” with --the--.
Claim 22:
Line 4, “the progress” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, line 7, “the point” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-14, 16-18, 20, and 21 depend on the objected claims and inherit the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, lines 3 and 4, “such as” is indefinite. Claims 11 and 20 have the same issue. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 10:
Lines 12-13 and 17-18, “the account data” is unclear whether it refers to “account data” in line 3 or 10 of the claim. For the examination purposes, “account data” in line 10 will be treated as --the account data--.
Lines 17 and 22, “the card” is unclear whether it refers to “the card” in line 4 or “a card” in line 11 of the claim. For the examination purposes, “the card” in line 4 and “a card” in line 11 will be treated as --a card-- and --the card--, respectively.
Claim 19:
Line 3, the term “suitably” ins indefinite since it is subjective and the specification does not disclose how to decide “suitably programmed system”. For the examination purposes, “suitably programmed system” it will be treated as -- programmed system--.
Lines 14-16, “the wearable” is unclear whether it refers to “a wearable” in lines 2-4 or line 9 of the claim. For the examination purposes, “a wearable” in line 9 will be treated as --the wearable--.
Claim 23:
Lines 17-19, “the wearable” is unclear whether it refers to “a wearable” in line 3 or line 15 of the claim. For the examination purposes, “a wearable” in line 15 will be treated as --the wearable--.
Claims 11-18, 20-22, and 24-29 depend on the rejected claims and inherit the same issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: "obtaining account data, based on details of a card associated with a token, from a tokenization platform to a personalization server; by the personalization server," "processing the account data into writable data, for transmission to the wearable, and "transmitting the writeable data to a device associated with the card and the account data, for personalizing a processing unit coupled to the wearable, the personalizing including writing the writable data to the processing unit from the device," under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, a device, microservices, system and subsystem) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2 and 11: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 3 and 12: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 4 and 13: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 5 and 14: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 6 and 15: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 7 and 16: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 8: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 9 and 17: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 18: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 20: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 21: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 22: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 23 is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: "obtaining a wearable for personalization, the wearable having been at least partially personalized with a portion of data associated with a card account for personalizing the wearable," "obtaining account data, based on details of a card associated with a token, from a tokenization platform to a personalization server," "by the personalization server, processing the account data into writable data, for transmission to a processing unit coupled to the wearable; and "transmitting the writeable data to a device associated with the card and the account data, for personalizing a wearable including writing at least a remaining portion of the account data as the writable data, to the processing unit coupled to the wearable from the device, to complete the personalization of the wearable," under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, a device, microservices, system and subsystem) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 24: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 25: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 26: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 27: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 28: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 29: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Allowable Subject Matter
After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “obtaining account data, based on details of a card associated with a token, from a tokenization platform to a personalization server" and "transmitting the writeable data to a device associated with the card and the account data, for personalizing a processing unit coupled to the wearable, the personalizing including writing the writable data to the processing unit from the device,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Claims 2-9, 10-18, and 20-22 depend on claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively, are also allowed.
Resolving the 35 USC 101 rejection would put claims 1-22 in condition for allowance.
After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that independent claim 23 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “"obtaining a wearable for personalization, the wearable having been at least partially personalized with a portion of data associated with a card account for personalizing the wearable," "obtaining account data, based on details of a card associated with a token, from a tokenization platform to a personalization server," and "transmitting the writeable data to a device associated with the card and the account data, for personalizing a wearable including writing at least a remaining portion of the account data as the writable data, to the processing unit coupled to the wearable from the device, to complete the personalization of the wearable,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Claims 24-29 depend on claim 23 are also allowed.
Resolving the 35 USC 101 rejection would put claims 23-29 in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,396,799 to Hurry discloses a payment card server to provide a device identification number and user payment account information to a payment card personalization service, the payment card personalization service storing association information, on a payment card, between a user payment account and a media device.
US 12,093,925 to Singla et al. discloses provisioning a smart payment card with biometric data, virtual account numbers, and financial account information, and processing financial transactions involving the smart payment card.
However, Hurry and Singla et al. do not disclose allowable subject matter as indicated above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192