DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in reply to the remarks/arguments for Application 18/601,161 filed on 12 December 2025.
Claims 2 and 10-13 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 14-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Claims 1, 3-9, and 14-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks/arguments regarding the claims at issue have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C § 101 is withdrawn.
1. Applicant argues that the claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, representative claim 9 is directed towards facilitating the locking/unlocking of a payment card used in a transaction in an automatic manner involving the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), grouping, in prong one of step 2A, inasmuch as the claimed method as a whole is directed towards activating/deactivating a physical card used in a transaction, involving steps which are nothing more than merely base on rules and instructions , but for the recitation of computer components.
Facilitating the activation/deactivation of a payment card based on conditions and/or criteria falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of the computer-related devices, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites: “: “receiving, … via an application on the user device, a request to activate a physical card, wherein the request indicates information relating to the physical card and location data, wherein the application implements a single interaction user interface element for the request to activate the physical card, and wherein the application blocks access to the user interface element when a user of the user device is not authenticated; activating, …, the physical card in response to the request, wherein activating the physical card allows use of the physical card in exchanges; monitoring, while the physical card is activated, for an expiration of an activation time duration, wherein the activation time duration is according to at least one of the following being determined from location data: a location type, or a mobility level associated with the user device, wherein the at least one of the location type or the mobility level is associated with a parameter that indicates a time period between the request and performing a transaction; generating and executing a database query that updates a status indicator for the physical card; detecting, …, that a deactivation condition for deactivating the physical card is satisfied, wherein the deactivation condition is the expiration of the activation time duration or an occurrence of an exchange involving the physical card; and deactivating, …, the physical card in response to satisfaction of the deactivation condition and without involvement of the user device, wherein deactivating the physical card prevents use of the physical card in exchanges.”
The steps merely comprise merely the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction and, thus, do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “device”, “user device”, “application”, “user interface”, represent the use of a computer as an intermediary and/or tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04 (d) I)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implementing the acts of the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Hence, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 9 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 9 applies to claim 1 accordingly.
Independent claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 16 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 9 in terms of a computer readable medium (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 9 applies to claim 16 accordingly.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
B. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Woronec, US 2010/0155470 A1 (“Woronec”), in view of Gephardt et al., US 2001/0047330 A1 (“Gephardt”), further in view of Kundu, US 2013/0091060 A1 (“Kundu”).
Claims 2 and 10-13 haven been canceled which renders their rejection moot.
The Office has given consideration to the remarks and amendments made to the pending set of claims, but are considered moot in light of the grounds of rejection, provided below, for the current listing of claims.
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, 3-9, and 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an -abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, representative claim 9 is directed towards facilitating the locking/unlocking of a payment card used in a transaction in an automatic manner involving the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), grouping, in prong one of step 2A, inasmuch as the claimed method as a whole is directed towards activating/deactivating a physical card used in a transaction, involving steps which are nothing more than merely base on rules and instructions , but for the recitation of computer components.
Facilitating the activation/deactivation of a payment card based on conditions and/or criteria falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of the computer-related devices, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites: “receiving, … via an application on the user device, a request to activate a physical card,
wherein the request indicates information relating to the physical card and location data,
wherein the application implements a single interaction user interface element for the request to activate the physical card, and
wherein the application blocks access to the user interface element when a user of the user device is not authenticated;
activating, …, the physical card in response to the request,
wherein activating the physical card allows use of the physical card in exchanges;
monitoring, while the physical card is activated, for an expiration of an activation time duration,
wherein the activation time duration is according to at least one of the following being determined from location data:
a location type, or a mobility level associated with the user device,
wherein the at least one of the location type or the mobility level is associated with a parameter that indicates a time period between the request and performing a transaction;
generating and executing a database query that updates a status indicator for the physical card;
detecting, …, that a deactivation condition for deactivating the physical card is satisfied,
wherein the deactivation condition is the expiration of the activation time duration or an occurrence of an exchange involving the physical card; and
deactivating, …, the physical card in response to satisfaction of the deactivation condition and without involvement of the user device,
wherein deactivating the physical card prevents use of the physical card in exchanges.”
The steps merely comprise merely the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction and, thus, do no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “device”, “user device”, “application”, “user interface”, represent the use of a computer as an intermediary and/or tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04 (d) I)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implementing the acts of the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of the use of rules and/or instructions to facilitate the activation/deactivation of a physical card comprising the steps of merely receiving/transmitting (“receiving … request to activate”), processing (“activating …; deactivating …”), verifying (“monitoring …”, “detecting … a deactivation condition …”) data/information associated with the occurrence of an event and/or transaction using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Hence, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 9 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 9 applies to claim 1 accordingly.
Independent claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 16 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 9 in terms of a computer readable medium (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 9 applies to claim 16 accordingly.
Dependent claims 3-8, 14-15, and 17-25 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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, and 14-25 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woronec, US 2010/0155470 A1 (“Woronec”), in view of Omojola et al., US 12,243,398 B2, (“Omojola”), in view of Talwar et al., US 2024/0152594 A1 (“Talwar”), further in view of Kundu, US 2013/0091060 A1 (“Kundu”).
Re Claim 1: (Currently Amended) Woronec discloses a system for selective unlocking of a physical card, the system comprising:
one or more memories; one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: (¶¶[18-19, 36, 59])
receive, from a user device …, a request to activate a physical card, wherein the request indicates location data associated with the user device, (FIG. 3A: [190])
Regarding the limitation feature(s) comprising:
… via an application on the user device … wherein the application implements a single interaction user interface element for the request to activate the physical card, and wherein the application blocks access to the user interface element when a user of the user device is not authenticated;
Omojola, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 1:{114: “mobile payment application”}; FIG. 6:{602}; C2 L54-62; C3 L37-39; C4 L39-49; C6 L61-64; C12 L19-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omojola to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of facilitating verification means associated with the activation of a payment instrument.
Regarding the limitation feature(s) comprising:
determine, based on the location data, an activation time duration for the physical card, wherein the activation time duration is determined based on at least one of the following being determined from the location data: a location type, or a mobility level associated with the user device, wherein the at least one of the location type or the mobility level is associated with a parameter that indicates a time period between the request and performing a transaction;
activate the physical card in response to the request, wherein activating the physical card allows use of the physical card in exchanges;
Talwar, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (¶[0027]: “The user interface may be configured to allow the first user 108 to limit how the physical card 112 is activated. For example, the activation NFT 128 may be configured to limit access to the profile 114 for a period of time. The first
user 108 may provide a determined period of time (for example, 6 months) in which the physical card 112 is to be activated. The server 106 may receive this user input and generate the activation NFT 128 to terminate access to the profile 114 after the period of time has elapsed. In another example, the activation NFT 128 may be configured to limit access to the profile 114 to a location. The first user 108 may provide a general location (such as a country, city, or zip code) in which the physical card 112 is to be activated. The server 106 may receive this user input and generate the activation NFT 128 to terminate access to the profile 114 if the first user 108 is attempting to perform an interaction
outside the boundaries of that general location. Alternatively, the first user 108 may provide a plurality of coordinates defining a geofence boundary. Each one of the plurality of coordinates may be a specific location, wherein the server 106 may connect adjacent coordinates to determine the geofence boundary. In this example, the activation NFT 128 may terminate access to the profile 114 if the first user 108 is attempting to perform an interaction outside the geofence boundary. In another example, the server 106 may determine if the first user 108 has provided a limit amount associated with usage of the physical card 112 to access profile 114. For example, the first user 108 may want to
access profile 114 with physical card 112 up to a certain value. The server 106 may receive user input designating this limit amount and may generate the activation NFT 128 to terminate access to the profile 114 after that limit amount has been met.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Talwar to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of controlling unauthorized access to a physical card
Omojola further discloses:
generate and execute a database query that updates a status indicator for the physical card;
Omojola, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (C13 L64-67, C14 L1-5: “The payment application characteristics and profiles, include for example, application version history, status of APIs or handlers executing on the application, error log, transaction log, and so on. The states of the payment application 114 can also be sent to the PPS 116 from time to time, and the instructions of how to collect state can be dictated by the state machine 136.”; C15 L30-38: “In one implementation, the PPS 116 includes one or more components configured specifically to allow the PPS 116 to activate a payment instrument through registration features, such as signatures on payment instrument, through device or applications, such as device 107 and application 114, and its corresponding device characteristics, profiles, signatures, or fingerprints and store as state along with timestamp at which state status is obtained”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omojola to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of facilitating verification means associated with the activation of a payment instrument.
Regarding the limitation feature(s) comprising:
monitor, while the physical card is activated, for an expiration of the activation time duration;
Kundu, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (Abstract; FIG. 5; ¶¶[4, 5, 6, 34, 39, 54]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kundu to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of mitigating the possibility of a fraudulent transaction.
Woronec further discloses:
deactivate, automatically in response to the expiration of the activation time duration, the physical card, wherein deactivating the physical card prevents use of the physical card in exchanges. (FIG. 3B; ¶[77])
Re Claim 2: (Canceled)
Woronec in view of Gephardt in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose but Kundu teaches:
wherein the one or more processors, to determine the activation time duration for the physical card, are configured to:
determine, based on the location data, at least one of: a location type of a location of the user device, or a mobility level of the user device;
determine the activation time duration according to the at least one of the location type or the mobility level.
Kundu, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (Abstract; FIG. 5; ¶¶[4, 5, 6, 34]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kundu to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of mitigating the possibility of a fraudulent transaction.
Re Claim 3: (Previously Presented) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors, to determine the activation time duration according to the at least one of the location type or the mobility level, are configured to: determine, based on historical exchange data for the physical card, the activation time duration according to the at least one of the location type or the mobility level. (FIGs. 3A, 3B)
Re Claim 4: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, while the physical card is activated, an exchange request relating to an exchange involving the physical card;
process the exchange in accordance with the physical card being activated;
deactivate the physical card in response to the exchange and prior to expiration of the activation time duration.
(FIG. 3B; ¶[77])
Re Claim 5: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose but
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, while the physical card is deactivated, an exchange request relating to an exchange involving the physical card;
determine, based on historical exchange data for the physical card, whether the exchange is recurring;
process the exchange based on a determination that the exchange is recurring.
Kundu, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (Abstract; FIG. 5; ¶¶[4, 5, 6, 34, 39, 54]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kundu to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of mitigating the possibility of a fraudulent transaction.
Re Claim 6: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec discloses:
wherein the one or more processors, to deactivate the physical card, are configured to: deactivate the physical card without involvement of the user device.
(FIG. 3B; ¶[77])
Re Claim 7: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose but Kundu teaches:
wherein the one or more processors, to activate the physical card, are configured to: update a status indicator for the physical card from a default deactivated status to an activated status.
Kundu, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (Abstract; FIG. 5; ¶¶[4, 5, 6, 34, 39, 54]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kundu to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of mitigating the possibility of a fraudulent transaction.
Re Claim 8: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose but Kundu teaches:
wherein the one or more processors, to deactivate the physical card, are configured to: update a status indicator for the physical card from an activated status to a default deactivated status.
Kundu, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (Abstract; FIG. 3:{370: “transaction log”}; FIG. 5; ¶¶[4, 5, 6, 34, 39, 44, 52, 54]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kundu to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of mitigating the possibility of a fraudulent transaction.
Re Claim 9: (Currently Amended) Claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 10: (Canceled)
Re Claim 11: (Canceled)
Re Claim 12: (Canceled)
Re Claim 13: (Canceled)
Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 14: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the method of claim 9. Woronec further discloses:
wherein the deactivation condition is a first-in-time of the expiration of the activation time duration or the occurrence of the exchange involving the physical card. (FIG. 3B; ¶[77])
Re Claim 15: (Original) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the method of claim 9. Woronec further discloses:
wherein the request further indicates at least one of an allowable amount for the physical card or one or more allowable channels for the physical card, and
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, while the physical card is activated, an exchange request relating to the exchange involving the physical card, wherein the exchange request indicates an amount and a channel for the exchange;
transmitting a response indicating that the exchange is declined in accordance with at least one of: the amount, alone or in combination with amounts of one or more additional exchanges, exceeding the allowable amount, or the channel differing from the one or more allowable channels.
(Abstract; ¶[16])
Re Claim 16: (Currently Amended) Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 17: (Original) Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 15. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 15.
Re Claim 18: (Original) Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 19: (Original) Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 20: (Original) Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 21: (Previously Presented) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein at least one of the location type or the mobility level indicate a probability of a particular exchange behavior.
Omojola, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 1:{142: “transaction history”, “interaction history”, “customer history”}; {FIG. 1: {114: “mobile payment application”}; FIG. 5:{512: “activate payment instrument”}; FIG. 6:{602}; C2 L54-62; C3 L37-39; C4 L13-18; L39-49; C6 L61-64; C12 L19-32: C15 L39-51; C16 L42-52; C29 L49-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omojola to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of facilitating verification means associated with the activation of a payment instrument.
Re Claim 23: (Previously Presented) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the physical card is deactivated further based on an occurrence of a transaction associated with the exchanges involving the physical card.
Omojola, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 1:{142: “transaction history”, “interaction history”, “customer history”}; {FIG. 1: {114: “mobile payment application”}; FIG. 5:{512: “activate payment instrument”}; FIG. 6:{602}; C2 L54-62; C3 L37-39; C4 L13-18; L39-49; C6 L61-64; C12 L19-32: C15 L39-51; C16 L42-52; C29 L49-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omojola to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of facilitating verification means associated with the activation of a payment instrument.
Re Claim 22: (Previously Presented) Woronec in view of Omojola in view of Talwar in view of Kundu discloses the system of claim 1. Woronec doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the mobility level is determined based on using a machine learning model trained to output a score associated with the mobility level based on historical exchange data.
Omojola, however, makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 1:{142: “transaction history”, “interaction history”, “customer history”}; {FIG. 1: {114: “mobile payment application”}; FIG. 5:{512: “activate payment instrument”}; FIG. 6:{602}; C2 L54-62; C3 L37-39; C4 L13-18; L39-49; C6 L61-64; C12 L19-32: C15 L39-51; C16 L42-52; C17 L20-25; C18 L3-5; C28 L12-20; C29 L49-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omojola to incorporate the teachings of Woronec for the motivation of facilitating verification means associated with the activation of a payment instrument.
Re Claim 24: (Previously Presented) Claim 24, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 23. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 23.
Re Claim 25: (Previously Presented) Claim 25, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 22. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grigg et al. (US 2013/0046692 A1) discloses fraud protection with user location verification. Embodiments of the invention provide fraud protection with user location verification. The methods, apparatus and computer program products provide for approving a transaction based at least partially on a determining that a mobile device associated with an account holder associated with a transaction
is located within a predetermined distance from the location associated with the transaction. In some example implementations where the mobile device is located outside the predetermined distance from the location associated with the transaction, information associated with previously approved
transactions is received and the transaction approved based at least partially on a determination that previously approved transaction have occurred at the same location.
Grant et al. (US 6,095,416) discloses a method and device for preventing unauthorized use of credit cards. An authorization card, such as a credit card, has a security feature. The authorization card generally has two operational states, a disabled state and an enable state. In the disabled state, which is the default mode of operation, access to confidential information stored on the card is denied. The
card remains in the disabled state until a PIN code is entered on a keypad provided on the card. Once the card is enabled, access to the confidential information is permitted for a predetermined period of time, after which the card reverts back to the default disabled state. The security feature is
implemented on a magnetic card, an electronic smart card, and passive electronic card.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 14-25 are rejected.
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 Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692