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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/25/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19, and 21 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 6-7, 10, 13-14, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea on pages 13-14 of the response. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims are directed to binding a bank card to a terminal, which is considered fundamental economic practice and therefore abstract.
Applicant further argues the claim amendments provide an improvement to technology and a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field or provide an improvement to a technical field. Specifically, applicant argues the claims “improve the process of binding bank cards to a terminal by increasing the efficiency of a first terminal in identifying and binding bank cards through the use of server-side historical card binding records, thereby reducing the number of manual card identification and verification operations required when a user provisions payment credentials onto a new terminal.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite improved efficiency. The specification only mentions "card-binding efficiency" which pertains to card verification which is an abstract idea. Hence, the efficiency arguments are inapplicable.
Applicant further argues the August 4, 2025 memorandum. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims have been analyzed as a whole. Furthermore examiner asserts that the claims include an abstract idea as discussed in the rejection below.
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-21 has been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, and system. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
sending, by a first terminal and in response to a first operation to a first application, a request to obtain a historical card binding record associated with a first account from a server of the first application;
receiving, by the first terminal, the historical card binding record, wherein the historical card binding record comprises identifiers of one or more other bank cards associated with the first account;
displaying, by the first terminal, in response to the first operation to the first application, and before a first bank card associated with the first account of the first application is bound to the first terminal, a first user interface comprising an identifier of the first bank card, wherein the first bank card is not bound to the first terminal, and wherein the first bank card is bound to a second terminal when the first application is logged into the first account on the second terminal;
receiving, by the first terminal, a second operation to select the first bank card as a to-be-bound bank card;
displaying, by the first terminal and in response to the second operation, a second user interface prompting a user to enter verification information of the to-be-bound bank card;
receiving, by the first terminal and after displaying the second user interface, the verification information of the to-be-bound bank card;
sending, by the first terminal, the verification information to the server of the first application to request delivery of a card application and personalization data corresponding to the to-be-bound bank card receiving, by the first terminal and after verification performed on the verification information succeeds, the card application and personalization data from the server;
binding, by the first terminal and based on the card application and personalization data, the to-be-bound bank card to the first terminal; and
displaying, by the first terminal and in response to the first terminal binding the to-be- bound bank card to the first terminal, a third user interface comprising a graphical indication that the to-be-bound bank card is bound to the first terminal.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “by a first terminal and in response to a first operation to a first application”, “…by a first terminal…”, “…second terminal when the first application is logged into the first account on the second terminal;“, “…by the first terminal and in response to the second operation, a second user interface…”, “…by the first terminal and after displaying the second user interface…”, “…by the first terminal and in response to the first terminal binding the to-be- bound bank card to the first terminal…” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice.
dependent claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 16, and 18-28 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 22 recites the additional elements of “wherein the first user interface further comprises an identifier of the second terminal …first terminal comprises storing, by the first terminal, the card application and personalization data in a secure element (SE) of the first terminal, and wherein the SE is configured to securely store the token and provide a secure execution environment for Near Field Communication (NFC) transactions.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 23 recites the additional elements of “wherein the first terminal comprises an NFC apparatus including an NFC controller (NFCC) connected to a radio frequency antenna, wherein the SE is connected to the NFCC, and wherein, after the to-be-bound bank card is bound to the first terminal, the NFCC communicates with the SE to retrieve the token stored in the SE and transmits the token via the radio frequency antenna to complete an NFC transaction without a network connection” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 24 recites the additional elements of “…by the first terminal… the server via a digital wallet server, wherein, before sending, the first terminal encrypts the verification information using a key corresponding to the to-be-bound bank card, and wherein the server decrypts the encrypted verification information and performs verification on the decrypted verification information before delivering the card application and personalization data to the first terminal.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 26 recites the additional elements of “storing, by the first terminal, a locally maintained record in a trusted execution environment (TEE) of the first terminal, wherein the locally maintained record associates the first account with the to-be-bound bank card bound to the first terminal.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 28 recites the additional elements of “wherein the first operation is a login operation performed by the user to log into the first application on the first terminal using the first account” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Lahkar (US 2017/0032362 A1) Teaches: streaming enrollment of credit cards in mobile wallets.
Kushevsky (US 2013/0221092 A1) Teaches: Method or loading a transaction card and processing repayments on a mobile device.
Wong et al. (US 2015/0046339 A1) Teaches: Method for provisioning mobile devices with payment credentials.
Brown et al. (US 2015/0348025 A1) Teaches: Method for using a primary user device to provision credentials onto a secondary device.
Singh et al. (PG PUB US 2013/0152185 A1) Teaches: Transaction provisioning for mobile wireless communication devices and related methods.
Kurani (PAT US 10,997,592 B1) Teaches: Mobile wallet account balance method.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
