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
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. On 4/21/26, Applicant amended the claims. Applicant Remarks address these features. See the addition of Natarjan to a new 103 below that addresses these new features and remarks.
Also, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s Spec. And, features are not read into the claims but what is actually presented in the claim language is what is interpreted.
Also, the 101 is still found to apply. No new additional elements beyond the generic have been added. See the 101 below.
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.
Independent Claims 1, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite receiving an advice message from an acquirer, the advice message being associated with a fleet-based vehicle energy purchase initiated at an access device of a merchant; performing a fleet-based merchant discount qualification assessment of the advice message to determine whether to apply a fleet-based merchant discount to the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase; and in response to the fleet-based merchant discount qualification assessment yielding that the fleet-based merchant discount is warranted, generating a discount advice message and generating a restored message and restoring the message a fleet-based merchant discount advice message to execute the fleet-based merchant discount on the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase, the fleet-based merchant discount advice message being generated by adding fleet-based merchant discount fields to the advice message to discount the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase, a preceding pairing to determine discounts and based a on a merchant-ID-pairing-over-card acceptor pairing. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered a fleet-based merchant discount portal of a payment processing network, a processer, a computer readable medium, a fleet-based merchant discount qualification unit; and a fleet-based merchant discount calculation and application unit. Also, claim 17 has a portal and automate and reduce hardware but no details are given in the claim as to how this occurs. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, 18-20 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce (20150088613) in view of Natarajan (20230013294).
Claims 1, 9, 17. Examiner notes in Applicant Spec that the fleet is interpreted as vehicle fleets like truck fleets (Applicant Spec at [1]) and acquirer is a payment processor like a bank [11]. Pierce discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a fleet-based merchant discount portal of a payment processing network, an advice message from an acquirer, the advice message being associated with a fleet-based vehicle energy purchase initiated at an access device of a merchant (Figs. 2, 3; note portal at [56]; [57, 59] and real time and fleet fuel and discount and driver behavior; note authenticate fuel purchase at [61]; also note acquirer at “[67]… an identifier of an acquirer associated with a merchant” and acquirer with bank in Fig. 2);
performing, at the fleet-based merchant discount portal, a fleet-based merchant discount qualification assessment of the advice message to determine whether to apply a fleet-based merchant discount to the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase (see discount conditions and discount time frame at [59, 65, 67, 91]; note authenticate fuel purchase at [61).
As noted in the 5/29/25 Interview, the following features are described in Applicant Spec at [73]. Based on Applicant Spec at [73] and anywhere else in Applicant Spec that restore could be found, restore is interpreted as approve, authorize, verify, validate, qualify, asses, confirm, warranted, apply, provide. Also, restore wad discussed in the 5/29/25 interview and no other description was found than what is stated in Applicant Spec at [73].
Pierce further discloses in response to the fleet-based merchant discount qualification assessment yielding that the fleet-based merchant discount is warranted (see specific pricing agreements/contracts at [67] and the agreements/contracts refer to discounts and conditions: “[59]… pricing agreement information relating to pre-negotiated agreements between merchants and fleets (e.g. discount pricing, discount conditions, discount time frame, discount location, and/or the like)…any contracts…”),
generating, at the fleet-based merchant discount portal, a fleet-based merchant discount advice message, and generating a restored fleet-based merchant discount advice response message, wherein the fleet-based merchant discount portal is configured to restore a fleet-based merchant discount advice response message to the restored fleet-based merchant discount advice response message (see warranted notification/alert for a particular fuel transaction [73] alert on fuel transaction that is warranted based on criteria [80, 104]; note [59] with location conditions for the discount contract and see Fig. 5 with send to message to go to alternative locations that have better discounts at particular location criteria; so Pierce sends alerts/messages based on warranted criteria/conditions being met for particular fuel transaction including conditions like location, so only approved discounts for a particular location are sent to the driver as a notice/alert to go to that approved location for the approved discount ; also Fig. 6 shows chart of locations and net after discount fuel price and [82] shows a message to deny driver a bad price and alert driver to get a better price at a particular location; also note authorization a fuel fill up based on criteria like geographic location [89], and note the location criteria in contracts [59]) and the fleet-based merchant discount advice message is configured to execute the fleet-based merchant discount on the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase (see discounts applied at [96, 98], note report on discounts applied at Figs. 9, 10).
Pierce further discloses the fleet-based merchant discount advice message is configured to execute the fleet-based merchant discount on the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase, the fleet-based merchant discount advice message being generated by adding fleet-based merchant discount fields to the advice message to discount the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase (Pierece shows calculate score and send alert for alternative fuel location based on better price [7, 9] that score in based on price per gallon including discounts [70] and that the message includes actual score/price information “[106]… In one example embodiment, the alert determination module 226 generates the fuel-related notification by merging data from one or more of the fuel-related scores computed at block 506 (FIG. 5) into a notification template”; also Fig. 8 shows fuel alerts can include price information, Fig. 8 with “+$0.051”; also Drivers can be alerted on pricing “[85]… Drivers can be alerted on pricing, scoring,… and/or the like.”; hence, Pierce sends an alert message with actual scoring/pricing and discount information).
Pierce further discloses wherein the fleet-based merchant discount portal dynamically verifies discount tag compliance for use in a fleet-based vehicle energy payment transaction, the dynamic discount tag compliance verification being based on a fleet client identifier included in the advice message (see matching at [12] and claim 7, and see discount and pricing and agreement at [59] see fleet specific discounts at [70, 91]) and wherein the fleet-based merchant discount portal performs a precedence pairing assessment to determine access to the fleet-based merchant discount plan for a fleet-based vehicle energy payment transaction (see authorize and fuel at [[61] and see matching at [12] and claim 7, and see discount and pricing and agreement at [59] see fleet specific discounts at [70, 91]), indicated by the structure of the advice message (note the messages from the fleet system to the central system to analyze pricing and discounts at [59]; note in [91, 96, 98] that some merchant do not have discounts, so having a discount agreement takes precedence for the pricing over not having a discount and that there are numerous possible discounts that may occur [65, 59] and note discount conditions at [59], so precedence occurs for having a discount for each of multiple possible different discount conditions/criteria that are submitted and analyzed over not having a discount for each of those conditions/criteria, and the discount conditions/criteria are paired and matched to determine their validity, like start date and matching the dates, or merchant/fleet and matching that, and location and matching that location, etc).
Pierce does not explicitly disclose the precedence pairing of the precedence pairing assessment being dictated based on a merchant-ID-pairing-over-card acceptor pairing hierarchical relationship. In regards to this feature, see Applicant Spec at [27, 66] of original Spec or [63] of the PG_Pub or pages 13, 36, 37 of the original Spec, Examiner notes that PAN is primary account number. Also, Applicant Spec at pg_pub [50] discloses key identifiers used in credit card transactions and at [11] that acquirer is acquirer, bank. issuer. Examiner notes that this claimed merchant ID pairing is interpreted as ((acquirer bank issuer bin) with (merchant MID cardholder (account owner or holder))) or vmid. And, the card acceptor pairing is interpreted as ((acquirer bank issuer bin) with (card acceptor CAID)) or “bin/caid”. And, Pierce discloses identifiers for verifying discount program transactions [63]. And, Natarajan further discloses credit card transaction processing and all IDS needed as claimed for that processing and authentication [2, 9] and that these IDs can be combined in any combination [9] and also processing loyalty and discounts associated with credit cards [2, 82]. And, Natarajan discloses the data can be organized using data models and hierarchical data models (“[61] Additionally, the data 201 can be organized using data models, such as relational or hierarchical data models.”). And, Natarajan discloses that all the IDS can be combined in different combinations and possibilities [71] and that in certain embodiments some ID comparisons can be given highest priority. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Natarajan’s discount programs and different combinations of IDs comparison for authentication and hierarchical data organizing and given priority to particular ID combinations to Pierce’s discount programs and identifiers and authentication. One would have been motivated to do this in order to verify transactions for discount programs.
In further regards to claim 9, Pierce further discloses a processer, a computer readable medium (Figs. 1, 2); the advice message being associated with a fleet-based vehicle energy purchase by a vehicle driver of a fleet vehicle (see authorize fuel purchase at [61]).
In further regards to claim 17, Pierce further discloses a fleet-based merchant discount qualification unit; and a fleet-based merchant discount calculation and application unit (Figs. 1, 2).
In further regards to claim 17, Pierce further discloses wherein the fleet- based merchant discount qualification unit and the fleet-based merchant discount calculation and application unit utilize a merchant-ID-pairing and a card acceptor pairing as part of a merchant-ID-pairing and a card acceptor pairing hierarchical relationship indicated by the structure of the advice message in the automation and reduction of an amount of hardware required at multiple locations across a payment transaction system (Note automated in Applicant Spec at [27]; see Pierce and centrally aggregated and analyze at [5, 52], see the server at [54] coupled to a plurality of sources, see the centrally aggregating server at [55] that analyzes, see the portal at [56], note that this central server also processes discounts [59]; and further see the combination of Pierce with Natarajan preceding for the pairing and hierarchical/precedence features).
Claim 3, 11. Pierce further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting the restored fleet-based merchant discount advice response message to the acquirer for use in clearing the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase ([82]; also note acquirer at Fig. 2 and [67]).
Claim 4. 12. Pierce further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein: when the fleet-based merchant discount qualification assessment yields that the fleet- based merchant discount is not warranted, the fleet-based merchant discount is not applied to the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase (see deny fuel purchase based on score which includes discount at [82]).
Claim 5, 13, 18. Pierce further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein: the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase is discounted according to a fleet-based merchant discount plan (see negotiated prices at [59, 67, 91, 7] and Fig. 6).
Claim 6, 14, 19. Pierce further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein: the fleet-based merchant discount plan is registered with a fleet-based merchant discount program at the payment processing network prior to applying the fleet-based merchant discount (see negotiated prices at [59, 67, 91, 7] and Fig. 6).
Claim 7, 15. Pierce further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein: the fleet-based vehicle energy purchase is at least one of a fuel purchase and an electricity purchase (see fuel purchase at [4, 51] and fuel and electricity at [50]).
Claim 8, 16. Pierce further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the fleet-based merchant discount qualification assessment includes confirming that an issuer and the acquirer have registered to participate in a fleet-based merchant discount program associated with the fleet-based merchant discount (see identifier of acquirer associated with merchant at [67] which is interpreted as having registered; also note Applicant Spec where the issuer and acquirer can be same at [11], so the acquirer of Pierce can be interpreted as an issuer-acquirer; note Applicant Spec where issuer is a bank at [13], Pierce also discloses acceptor identifier at [67] and bank at [60] and Fig. 2; note record key for approved discount transaction and card processing entity at [95]).
Claim 20. Pierce further discloses the payment processing network of claim 19, wherein: the advice message is received at the payment processing network from an acquirer for purposes of applying the fleet-based merchant discount (see payment product at [57]; note acquirer at [67], note acceptor identifier at [67] and bank at [60] and Fig. 2; note record key for transaction by card processing entity at [95]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aaa) These discloses CAID and other credit card transaction identifiers/pairs: Celik [121] and [173] awards [11]; Chaffin; Natarajan; Strayer [0078]; Rajaskekar; Todasco [12]; YAN [0003];
Pierce, Backsen, Khalil disclose discount fleet fuel, so does the other cited prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 5/13/26
Prosecution Insights