DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are pending in this application.
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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of a method for changing/updating/converting mobile’s account credentials by relying on predetermined identifiers (e.g., an application identifier).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving a request to digitize 2nd acct. in an app of a mobile device without user intervention, in place of 1st account already provisioned to the mobile device; request includes (i) a “first funding primary account number” (FRAN) associated with 1st acct, AND (ii) a 2nd FRAN associated with 2nd acct; determining 1st acct is different from 2nd acct based on 1st and 2nd range segment FPAN; if different, identifying an AID for 2nd acct based on a segment of 2nd FPAN; the data structuring includes mapping between acct range segment and respective AIDs; transmitting a request, which includes identified AID, to digitize 2nd acct. in an app of a mobile device; receiving a “notice” to digitize 2nd acct.; “notice” includes an AID for 1st acct; validating AID for 1st acct based on 2nd acct. AID OR 2nd acct. type; if validated, generating and transmitting personalization data for the app.; personalization data includes (1) new token specific to the second account, (2) expiration date for the new token, and (3) verification code for the new token; transmitting personal data to mobile device; and mobile device adopting “the instance with the personalized data” to digitize the second account in the application of the mobile device without user intervention, – specifically, the claim recites: “receive, from an issuer of a second account, a request to digitize the second account in an application… specific to a user without intervention by the user, in place of a first account already provisioned to the mobile device, the request including a first funding primary account number (FPAN) associated with the first account and a second FPAN specific to the second account;
determine that a type of the second account is different than a type of the first account, based on a first account range segment of the first FPAN relative to a second account range segment of the second FPAN; and based on determining the type of the second account is different than the type of the first account: identify, in a data structure, an application identifier (AID) for the type of the second account, based on the second account range segment of the second FPAN, the data structuring including mappings between account range segments and respective AIDs; and transmit… a request, which includes the identified AID, to digitize the second account to the mobile device… identify a script specific to the AID for the second account, wherein the script configures the mobile device to delete an instance of the application associated with the first account and to create the instance of the application for the second account in the mobile device; transmit the script to the mobile device… create an instance of the application for the second account and returns a notice to digitize the second account into the mobile device; receive the notice to digitize the second account; and transmit the notice to digitize the second account to the token platform computing device; and wherein the token platform computing device is configured, by the executable instructions, to: receive… the notice to digitize the second account to the instance of the application for the second account in the mobile device, the notice including an AID for the first account; validate the AID for the first account based on the AID for the second account and/or the type of the second account; and based on the AID for the first account being validated, generate and transmit personalization data for the instance of the application in the mobile device, to the digital platform computing device, the personalization data including a new token specific to the second account, an expiration date for the new token, and a verification code for the new token… transmit the personalization data to the mobile device… digitize the second account in the application of the mobile device without intervention of the user at the mobile device”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk of fraudulent transactions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “mobile devices”, “a token platform computing device”, “a processing network” and “a digital platform computing device”, in claim 1, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system, mobile devices, a token platform computing device, a processing network, and a digital platform computing device. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of wherein the token platform computing device is configured to compare the first account range segment of the first FPAN and the second account range segment of the second FPAN, in order to determine that the type of the second account is different than the type of the first account, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the token platform computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of wherein the request includes other data specific to the second account, the other data including a country code and/or a product name; and wherein the token platform computing device is configured to identify the AID for the second account further based on the other data, the other data including a country code and a product name, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the token platform computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of wherein the token platform computing device is configured, in order to identify the AID for the second account, to search for at least a part of the second FPAN in the account range segments of the data structure, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the token platform computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of wherein the personalization data includes card art specific to the type of the second account, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of wherein the type of the second account is different than the type of the first account based on brand and/or processing network; and wherein the first account is issued by said issuer, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “processing network” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-4 and 7-8 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… the pending claims are directed to operations for altering the physical configuration of a mobile device, where an instance of an application is deleted from the mobile device, through a generated script, and replaced with a new instance of the application. This is a patent eligible invention,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no “altering the physical configuration of a mobile device”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Applicant amended the claims substantially to more further elaborate on what is claimed, and now recites additional limitations herein. In connection therewith, the pending claims do not recite an abstract idea, and certainly recite significantly more than any alleged idea,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison to the prior version, the added elements (see underlined) and deleted elements (if any, struck out with a line) are essentially:
(1) “receive, from an issuer of a second account, a request to digitize the second account in an application of a mobile device specific to a user without intervention by the user, in place of a first account already provisioned to the mobile device”;
(2) “determine that a type of the second account is different than a type of the first account, based on a first account range segment of the first FPAN relative to a second account range segment of the second FPAN”;
(3) “the data structuring including mappings between account range segments and respective AIDs”; and
(4) “the personalization data including a new token specific to the second account, an expiration date for the new token, and a verification code for the new token”.
These changes are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections because: for 101 analysis purpose, this is just stating (corresponding to the numberings above):
that the first account is already provisioned to the mobile device;
that the determination is based on a specific part of FPAN data, which is a business process;
that data includes mapping between account range segments and respective AIDs; and
that personalization data including a new token specific to the second account, an expiration date for the new token, and a verification code for the new token.
These are abstract ideas. There is nothing technical about it.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The additional limitation further defines the pending claims in terms of specific data-parsing and classification operations performed on structured numeric identifiers within a defined processing network architecture (as defined between the token platform computing device and the digital platform computing device operating together in concert),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is just data processing and classification. It does not improve network architecture technology.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Claim 1 is amended to recite a specific data structure, which includes individual mappings between multiple account range segments and respective AIDs. See, e.g., TABLE 1, etc. The example mappings include the AID, for example, tied to a specific FPAN account range segment. By this amendment, the identifying operation is more clearly a concrete technical operation - that produces a specific technical output, i.e., the AID, which, in tum, anchors the identification limitation to that specific data structure and a specific technical purpose,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment only made clear that data classification and mapping are business model/process. There is no technology involved.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The script, as previously recited, alters the mobile device, upon execution, where the instance of the application of the mobile device is impacted - changed, in fact, where one is deleted and a new one is created. Consequently, the claim language emphasizes a concrete, device-level technical result- which is a structural change to software configuration of the mobile device. This is not different than the "technology" of the hybrid webpage in DDR. As such, eligibility here parallels the reasoning in DDR in that the claims address a specifically technological problem (the mobile device holding an application instance incompatible with the new account type) and solve it through specific technical operations, not merely through a business rule,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The “change” – i.e., software processing and usage – is predetermined/program by business rules/process. It is based on the input. It is not a technological innovation.
As stated in the prior office actions:
“The generated script that linked the new account is based on predetermined/agreed-upon identifiers. This is a business process/ idea.”
And
“Managing account credentials by relying on predetermined identifiers is very different from improving the display on an electronic screen. The claimed invention is not improving the technology (e.g., improving a viewable internet page). Unlike DDR, the claimed invention clearly uses “generic computers” to carry out a business idea”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Plainly, the pending claims are directed to a distributed processing network - including a token platform computing device and a digital platform computing device operating in concert - that modifies the software configuration of a mobile device by replacing one AID-specific application instance with another newly created instance, using AID-keyed data structure lookups and multi- platform script delivery, to accomplish the modification to the mobile device without user interaction,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the modification-of-the-software-configuration/“change” – i.e., software processing and usage – is predetermined/program by business rules/process. It is based on the input. It is not a technological innovation.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The concept of risk mitigation is complete absent from what the pending claims recite -- risk is not mentioned in the claims, nor is fraud -nor is either actually referenced in the specification. The claims cannot be rewritten by assumptions of the Office. The claims are not directed to risk mitigation, and the rejection should be withdrawn,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The risk being mitigated here is the protection of (consumer’s) credit account associated with a wallet when there is a new/different account. As discussed above and in the prior office actions:
“The specification clearly states that the invention is used for “account credential conversions, in which account credentials are converted, in mobile devices, based on changes in account types associated therewith”, i.e., a process to replace or update payment credential in the mobile device. See Specification Background.
And
“The specification makes clear that this claimed invention is part of the process of managing transaction credentials. See paragraph 2 “the present disclosure generally relates to systems and methods for use in account credential conversions”; paragraph 4 “The credentials, in turn, may be used to initiate transactions, where the credentials are associated with payment accounts, and the payment accounts are used to fund the transactions”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“in the latest rejection the Office seemingly departs from the framework of the proper analysis for eligibility, and instead, looks at only the added and deleted limitations individually in a vacuum and completely apart from Claim 1… it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner provided the entire 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis as a whole. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101. Then the examiner addressed each amendment to give specificities to the analysis and why the amendments did not change the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the instance of the application included in the mobile device effectively enables the mobile device as the credential, i.e., as extended functionality. This is rooted in technology, and creates the technical problem of updating or replacing that technology instance, as needed. For example, a second account is to be an instance of the application in the mobile device in place of an instance of a first, different account,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the prior office action:
“The generated script that linked the new account is based on predetermined/agreed-upon. This is a business process/idea.”
and
“Managing account credentials by relying on predetermined identifiers is very different from improving the display on an electronic screen. The claimed invention is not improving the technology (e.g., improving a viewable internet page). Unlike DDR, the claimed invention clearly uses “generic computers” to carry out a business idea”.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights