DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a regular utility patent application with no claim of priority.
Response to Amendment
2.. An RCE with accompanying Amendment was filed January 20, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Final Rejection dated December 3, 2025.
No Rejection under §103 is pending, having been withdrawn in the Final Rejection.
However, despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejection under §101 as set forth in the Final Rejection is hereby maintained. Moreover, the Examiner requests a follow up interview to discuss the issues under §101.
Please use the AIR form at the Conclusion of this Action for scheduling an interview.
Applicant should note that the features of at least para. 0015 of the specification and the dependent Claims 3 – 8, if claimed with specificity, may provide eligible subject matter. While the previous interview was helpful, the Amendment does not adequately reflect the solution to a technical problem, as explained below in more detail.
An explanation of the maintained Rejection and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1 and 9 and 15 are independent and were amended in substantially identical fashion.
The dependent Claims were not amended.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejection under §101 with regard to Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
717
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation:
Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01
Here, no special meaning is detected. The terms appear to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Paragraph 0016 refers to a simple “cross-reference file” and 0018 refers to storage of that file.
With regard to §101:
Respectfully, while the Claim has been amended in a good faith manner, its limitations are recited at a very high level of generality and not with specificity. Only the broad concepts of a “cross-reference” file are recited. The file is stored. An interface is used to “display” information. These are things that computers do well and very commonly every day, in fact every micro-second of every day.
The Claim does not specifically reflect the solution to a technical problem or specifically “how” that problem is solved, in spite of the fact that the specification refers to such a problem/solution scenario:
“[0014]In this way, the authorized users can then use the physical transaction devices associated with the primary credentials to enter into transactions at the sponsoring merchant, which may allow the authorized users to earn merchandise discounts, points, rewards, or other benefits in a similar manner as the deactivated PLCC. In addition, because the new primary credentials are associated with a transaction card association or credit card network, the primary credentials can be used to enter into a transaction at any merchant that accepts payment credentials associated with the transaction card association or credit card network. However, in some cases, users associated with the deactivated PLCCs may present their deactivated physical transaction devices for in-person transactions in a post-conversion or post-migration time period. For example, some users may forget to bring the physical transaction device associated with the new primary credential and/or may not be aware that the deactivated PLCC was migrated or converted to the new primary credential. In such cases, presenting the deactivated physical transaction device at a transaction terminal in an attempt to enter into a transaction may result in various technical issues. For example, when the transaction is attempted, various network and system resources are consumed when authorization for the transaction is requested and ultimately declined. In addition, declined transaction incidents may lead to calls or inquiries to customer service personnel to resolve confusion about the declined transaction.
[0015]Accordingly, in order to conserve the system and/or network resources that may be consumed when a user presents a deactivated physical transaction device after an account associated with the deactivated physical transaction device has been migrated or converted to a primary account associated with a transaction card association or credit card network (e.g., from a PLCC to a co-branded credit card), the transaction backend system may generate a unique limited use virtual credential associated with each account to temporarily allow authorized users to enter into in-person transactions using the deactivated physical transaction device. For example, in some implementations, the limited use virtual credential associated with each account may be bound to the merchant that issued the deactivated physical transaction device, such that the deactivated physical transaction devices can only be used to enter into in-person transactions at transaction terminals associated with the merchant bound to the virtual credentials. Furthermore, in some implementations, the virtual credentials may be associated with one or more additional parameters that limit when and/or how many times the deactivated physical transaction devices can be presented for in-person transactions. For example, in some implementations, the virtual credentials may have a limited validity period, such as 60 days or another suitable time period, and/or may be limited to a quantity of transactions (e.g., may be automatically disabled after the limited validity period has elapsed and/or the virtual credentials have been used to enter into the configured quantity of transactions). In addition, to reduce a fraud risk, the virtual credential associated with each deactivated credential may be associated with a policy that the virtual credential will not be reissued if deactivated, lost, stolen, or associated with a fraud report.” (Emphasis Added)
These are important limitations which define “how” the technical problems are solved in a technical manner, while ensuring the security of the transaction. However, with the present Amendment, it is not clear how these solutions are reflected. It does not appear that they are. The limitations recited are conceptual and high level. Mere broad ideas such as a cross-reference file and storing that file and displaying information on an interface are highly abstract. No new computerized components are recited. Only the broad idea or result of the outcome is recited in the Claim.
Thus, the amendments to the Claim do not alter the analysis set for the Non-Final Rejection regarding §101. The Claim merely recites a series of steps, some of which could be performed in the human mind. Receiving data and making determinations based upon looking up other data are among the most common computerized functions.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of processing identifiers for authentication purposes. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem, the currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of using a virtual credential to limit declines at the POS. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 rejection, Applicant states the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
300
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s interview summary, however, points that these features must be “claimed with specificity” AND that “the claim be amended to more clearly refer to computer components and to reflect in the claim how the claimed system was solving the technical problem of declines at the POS.”
In the Amendment, Applicant has not done so. In fact, Applicant barely did more than copy and paste the two features quoted in the Examiner’s interview summary. Greater specificity is required. An interview is strongly suggested.
The Rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. co-branded credit cards). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0119756 to Acuna et al. This reference relates to the concept of using a virtual credential for verification.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0058227 to Dua. This reference relates to the concept of authorization for a transaction using a virtual credential.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests either a phone call at the number set forth below or the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, he use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
March 4, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691