DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtain a first account identifier for a first transaction card;
send a split transaction account creation request to a split transaction service, the split transaction account creation request comprising the first account identifier representing the first transaction card and a second account identifier representing a second transaction card;
receive a split transaction token from the split transaction service, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction; and
provide the split transaction token to a point-of-sale (PoS) device to complete a transaction.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers commercial interactions sales activities or a business relationship between multiple user’s having different transaction cards to perform a single transaction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising or
marketing or sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not
recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical
application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
To the extent that the machine-readable instructions that perform the steps of obtaining, sending, receiving and providing may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a display monitor or screen), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. The steps are interpreted to include computer instructions, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of sending and receiving data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, machine readable instructions would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application, the additional element of machine readable instructions 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.
The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis should have been applied to claims 8 and 15 which recites essentially the same
abstract idea as in claim 1.
Similarly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of machine readable instructions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., U.S. Patent Application 2014/0222663 in view of O’Regan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108011.
As per Claim 1, Park et al., discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory (Figure 10, User equipment 100, Processor 150 and Memory 120); and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that (pg.8, ¶ [0105] discusses other machine-readable storage medium, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine),
when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
obtain a first account identifier for a first transaction card (pg.2, ¶ [0030] discusses the primary user equipment (e.g., user equipment 101) collects information on payment instruments from the member user equipment ( e.g., user equipment 102 and 103);
send a split transaction account creation request to a split transaction service, the split transaction account creation request comprising the first account identifier representing the first transaction card and a second account identifier representing a second transaction card (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses service server 200 may receive information on user equipment 100 and payment instruments thereof with the registration request from user equipment 100 and store and manage the received information).
Park et al. pg.6, ¶ [0083] teaches service server 200 may obtain the payment information directly from payment terminal 400.
However, Park et al. fails to explicitly state receive a split transaction token from the split transaction service, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction; and provide the split transaction token to a point-of-sale (PoS) device to complete a transaction.
O’Regan teaches receive a split transaction token from the split transaction service, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction (pg.4, ¶ [0031] discusses the linked transaction account may be a virtual card number (VCN)(whether in electronic form or on plastic magnetic stripe or chip enabled card) that is not associated directly to a line of credit, but rather linked to transaction accounts that are); and
provide the split transaction token to a point-of-sale (PoS) device to complete a transaction (pg.4, ¶ [0033] discusses a user of one of the mobile devices 104 may then conduct a payment transaction at a merchant 108. As part of the conducting of the payment transaction, the mobile device 104 may convey the payment credentials for the linked transaction account to the merchant 108 for use in the funding of the payment transaction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to generate a payment token to process a grouped payment into one transaction as in the improvement discussed in O’Regan in the system executing the method of Park et al. As in O’Regan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art of processing a single transaction to the grouped transaction cards with the predicted result of generating a single payment token to be processed at a POS as needed in Park et al.
As per Claim 3, Park et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is a first computing device that further comprises a near field communication (NFC) reader and the machine-readable instructions that cause the first computing device to obtain the first account identifier for the first transaction card further cause the first computing device to at least read the first account identifier for the first transaction card from a second computing device using the NFC reader of the first computing device (pg.3, pg.2, ¶ [0035] discusses user equipment 100 includes circuitries for near field communication (NFC), Bluetooth communication, radio frequency identification (RFID) communication, infrared data communication, and acoustic communication…¶ [0039] discusses user equipment (e.g., 101 as primary user equipment) receives information on payment instruments from other user equipment (e.g., 102 and 103 as member user equipment) when user equipment 101 touches other user equipment 102 or 103 (e.g., tagging input) in order to initiate a group payment operation).
As per Claim 5, Park et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
present a set of transaction cards to a user of the computing device, the set of transaction cards including the second transaction card (pg.3, ¶ [0039] discusses As the primary user equipment for the group payment service, user equipment 101 produces member's payment instrument icons based on the received payment instrument information and a group payment icon for setting up a group payment with the received information on payment instruments of member user equipment 102 and 10); and
obtain a selection of the second transaction card from the set of transaction cards (Figure 6, depicts (Figure 7, depicts user equipment 101, where the user is selecting a second transaction card to include in the group payment).
As per Claim 6, Park et al., discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
present an option to the user of the computing device to split the transaction between at least the first transaction card and the second transaction card (pg.6, ¶ [0079] discusses such graphic user interface may enable a user to set a desired rate to split a payment amount among members, to set a split portion of a payment amount, and so forth).
Park et al. teaches a system and method that enables a user to set a desired rate to split a payment among members except for explicitly stating wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device to obtain the first account identifier from the first transaction card in response to a selection of the option to split the transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a first card from among the multiple cards since it was known in the art that when splitting a payment among multiple cards requires the selection of a first card.
As per Claim 7, Park et al., the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
obtain a split parameter (pg.3, ¶ [0040] discusses may enable a group of individuals to make a payment together using user equipment by collecting information on payment instruments from each individual, splitting a payment amount with a predetermined rate, and processing each one of split payment amounts using the collected payment instruments, respectively); and
include the split parameter in the split transaction account creation request (pg.6, ¶ [0077] discusses the generated group payment information may include information on each payment instrument such as a name of a payment card, a payment card number, an expiration date, a security code, an Internet address of a corresponding financial transaction server, a split portion of a payment amount, and so forth).
As pe Claim 8, Park discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, using a computing device, a first account identifier for a first transaction card (pg.2, ¶ [0030] discusses the primary user equipment (e.g., user equipment 101) collects information on payment instruments from the member user equipment ( e.g., user equipment 102 and 103);
sending, using the computing device, a split transaction account creation request to a split transaction service, the split transaction account creation request comprising the first account identifier representing the first transaction card and a second account identifier representing a second transaction card (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses service server 200 may receive information on user equipment 100 and payment instruments thereof with the registration request from user equipment 100 and store and manage the received information);
Park et al. pg.6, ¶ [0083] teaches service server 200 may obtain the payment information directly from payment terminal 400.
However, Park et al. fails to explicitly state receive a split transaction token from the split transaction service, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction; and provide the split transaction token to a point-of-sale (PoS) device to complete a transaction.
O’Regan teaches receive a split transaction token from the split transaction service, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction (pg.4, ¶ [0031] discusses the linked transaction account may be a virtual card number (VCN)(whether in electronic form or on plastic magnetic stripe or chip enabled card) that is not associated directly to a line of credit, but rather linked to transaction accounts that are); and
provide the split transaction token to a point-of-sale (PoS) device to complete a transaction (pg.4, ¶ [0033] discusses a user of one of the mobile devices 104 may then conduct a payment transaction at a merchant 108. As part of the conducting of the payment transaction, the mobile device 104 may convey the payment credentials for the linked transaction account to the merchant 108 for use in the funding of the payment transaction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to generate a payment token to process a grouped payment into one transaction as in the improvement discussed in O’Regan in the system executing the method of Park et al. As in O’Regan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art of processing a single transaction to the grouped transaction cards with the predicted result of generating a single payment token to be processed at a POS as needed in Park et al.
As pe Claim 10, Park et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the computing device is a first computing device that further comprises a near field communication (NFC) reader and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises reading the first account identifier for the first transaction card from a second computing device using the NFC reader of the first computing device (pg.3, pg.2, ¶ [0035] discusses user equipment 100 includes circuitries for near field communication (NFC), Bluetooth communication, radio frequency identification (RFID) communication, infrared data communication, and acoustic communication…¶ [0039] discusses user equipment (e.g., 101 as primary user equipment) receives information on payment instruments from other user equipment (e.g., 102 and 103 as member user equipment) when user equipment 101 touches other user equipment 102 or 103 (e.g., tagging input) in order to initiate a group payment operation).
As per Claim 12, Park et al., discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
presenting a set of transaction cards to a user of the computing device, the set of transaction cards including the second transaction card (Figure 5, depicts 1st credit card and 2nd credit card on primary user equipment); and
obtaining a selection of the second transaction card from the set of transaction cards (pg.5, ¶ [0072] discusses member user equipment 102 transmits information on a selected payment instrument to primary user equipment 101 through short distance communication).
As per Claim 13, Park et al. discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
present an option to the user of the computing device to split the transaction between at least the first transaction card and the second transaction card (pg.6, ¶ [0079] discusses such graphic user interface may enable a user to set a desired rate to split a payment amount among members, to set a split portion of a payment amount, and so forth); and
wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device to obtain the first account identifier from the first transaction card in response to a selection of the option to split the transaction (pg.6, ¶ [0084] discusses service server 200 may request a financial transaction server associated with a payment instrument selected and transmitted from member user equipment 102 to process a split portion of a payment amount of member user equipment 102 with the associated payment instrument).
As per Claim 14, Park et al. discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
obtaining a split parameter; and including the split parameter in the split transaction account creation request (pg.17, ¶ [0077] discusses the generated group payment information may include information on each payment instrument such as…a split portion of a payment amount).
As per Claim 15, Park et al., discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory (Figure 10, Processor 150 and Memory 120); and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor (pg.7, ¶ [0090] discusses memory 120 may store information necessary for operating user equipment 100 and performing certain operations requested by a user. Such information may include any software programs and related data), cause the computing device to at least:
receive a split transaction account creation request from a client application (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses service server 200 may receive information on user equipment 100 and payment instruments thereof with the registration request from user equipment 100 and store and manage the received information),
the split transaction account creation request comprising a first account identifier representing a first transaction card and a second account identifier representing a second transaction card (pg.6, ¶ [0076] discusses Payment instrument icon 612 may be mapped to information on the payment instrument selected and transmitted from member user equipment 102 and payment instrument icon 711 may be mapped to information on a payment instrument stored in and selected by primary user equipment 101).
Park et al. pg.6, ¶ [0083] teaches service server 200 may obtain the payment information directly from payment terminal 400.
However, Park et al. fails to explicitly state generate a split transaction token, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction;
link the first account identifier and the second account identifier to the split transaction token; and send the split transaction token to the client device.
O’Regan teaches generate a split transaction token, the split transaction token representing a virtualized transaction card for use in a transaction (pg.4, ¶ [0031] discusses the linked transaction account may be a virtual card number (VCN)(whether in electronic form or on plastic magnetic stripe or chip enabled card) that is not associated directly to a line of credit, but rather linked to transaction accounts that are); and
link the first account identifier and the second account identifier to the split transaction token (pg.4, ¶ [0030] discusses the linked profile may include at least an account identifier for each of the linked mobile devices 104, which may be one of the account identifiers included in an account profile associated with the respective mobile device 104);
send the split transaction token to the client device (pg.4, ¶ [0033] discusses a user of one of the mobile devices 104 may then conduct a payment transaction at a merchant 108. As part of the conducting of the payment transaction, the mobile device 104 may convey the payment credentials for the linked transaction account to the merchant 108 for use in the funding of the payment transaction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to generate a payment token to process a grouped payment into one transaction as in the improvement discussed in O’Regan in the system executing the method of Park et al. As in O’Regan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art of processing a single transaction to the grouped transaction cards with the predicted result of generating a single payment token to be processed at a POS as needed in Park et al.
As per Claim 16, Park et al. discloses the system of the claimed invention. However, Park et al., fails to disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
receive, from a point-of-sale (PoS) device, a transaction authorization request for the transaction, the transaction authorization request comprising the split transaction token;
perform a first pre-authorization with the first transaction card for a first portion of the transaction;
perform a second pre-authorization with the second transaction card for a second portion of the transaction; and
authorize the transaction in response to the first pre-authorization and the second pre-authorization.
O’Regan teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
receive, from a point-of-sale (PoS) device, a transaction authorization request for the transaction, the transaction authorization request comprising the split transaction token (pg.5, ¶ [0040] discusses the merchant 108 may submit (e.g., via one or more intermediate entities) a transaction message for the payment transaction to the payment network 110, which may include the payment details for the linked transaction account for funding);
perform a first pre-authorization with the first transaction card for a first portion of the transaction (pg.5, ¶ [0040] discusses if there are four funding transaction accounts that each contribute 25% to the linked transaction account the processing server 102 may then initiate a plurality of secondary payment transactions for the funding of the initial payment transaction, based on funding rules associated with the linked transaction account…processing server 102 may initiate four different secondary payment transactions for 25% of the transaction amount of the primary payment transaction, with each secondary payment transaction being funded by a different funding transaction account);
perform a second pre-authorization with the second transaction card for a second portion of the transaction (Figure 7, Step 712 discusses a plurality of authorization requests may be respectively transmitted (e.g., by the transmitting device 220) to one or more servers of financial institutions (e.g., issuers 106) providing the plurality of funding accounts, the authorization requests being requests to pay the respective potions of the amount of the payment transaction); and
authorize the transaction in response to the first pre-authorization and the second pre-authorization (Figure 7, Step 718 discusses an authorization signal may be transmitted (e.g., by the transmitting device 220) in response to the payment authorization request to authorize the transaction using the common payment account number in accordance with the authorizations received from the one or more servers of the financial institutions providing the plurality of funding accounts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to process each linked transaction account separately as in the improvement discussed in O’Regan in the system executing the method of Park et al. As in O’Regan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art of authorizing multiple transactions account for a single transaction with the predicted result of processing multiple transactions cards for a single transaction as needed in Park et al.
As per Claim 17, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention. However, Park et al. fails to explicitly state wherein the transaction authorization request further comprises a split parameter specifying a ratio for splitting the transaction into at least the first portion and the second portion and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least determine a first amount for the first portion of the transaction and a second amount for the second portion of the transaction based at least in part on the split parameter.
O’Regan teaches wherein the transaction authorization request further comprises a split parameter specifying a ratio for splitting the transaction into at least the first portion and the second portion and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least determine a first amount for the first portion of the transaction and a second amount for the second portion of the transaction based at least in part on the split parameter (pg.13, ¶ [0102] discusses a secondary transaction amount may be calculated for each funding account number of the plurality of funding account numbers by a transaction processing module (e.g., the transaction processing module 218) of the processing server based on at least the primary transaction amount stored in the second data element included in the received transaction message and the one or more funding rules included in the stored account profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate a portion for each transaction account for payment to a total transaction as in the improvement discussed in O’Regan in the system executing the method of Park et al. As in O’Regan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art of authorizing multiple transactions account for a single transaction with the predicted result of calculating a portion for each linked account for a single transaction as needed in Park et al.
As per Claim 18, Park et al. discloses the system of the claimed invention. However, Park et al. fails to disclose wherein the transaction authorization request further comprises a split parameter specifying a maximum amount for the transaction and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least authorize the transaction based at least in part on the split parameter.
O’Regan teaches (pg.13, ¶ [0098] discusses the method 700 may also include determining (e.g., by the transaction processing module 218) a credit line value for the common payment account number based at least on balance information of each of the funding accounts and credit histories of the funding accounts).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in Park et al., the ability to utilize the credit line of a transaction account as taught by O’Regan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 19, Park et al., discloses the claimed invention. However, Park et al., fails to disclose wherein the transaction authorization request further comprises a split parameter specifying a maximum amount for the first portion of the transaction or the second portion of the transaction and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least perform the first pre-authorization or the second pre-authorization based at least in part on the first portion of the transaction or the second portion of the transaction satisfying the split parameter.
O’Regan wherein the transaction authorization request further comprises a split parameter specifying a maximum amount for the first portion of the transaction or the second portion of the transaction and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least perform the first pre-authorization or the second pre-authorization based at least in part on the first portion of the transaction or the second portion of the transaction satisfying the split parameter (pg.13, ¶ [0097] discusses the respective portion included in each of the plurality of authorizations may be a percentage value authorized by each of the plurality of entities…the respective portion included in each of the plurality of authorizations may be a currency threshold value authorized by each of the plurality of entities).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in Park et al., the ability to authorize a threshold value on each transaction card as taught by O’Regan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 20, Park et al discloses the system of the claimed invention. However, Park et al. fails to explicitly state wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least determine that the split transaction token is associated with a split transaction account that has been used with more than a maximum number of transactions.
O’Regan teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least determine that the split transaction token is associated with a split transaction account that has been used with more than a maximum number of transactions (pg.13, ¶ [0098] discusses the generation request may include a limitation that indicates maximum times that the requested common payment account number may be used for future payments).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in Park et al., the ability to authorize a transaction for a maximum amount of times as taught by O’Regan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., U.S. Patent Application 2014/0222663 in view of O’Regan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108011 further in view of Rapowitz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0242199.
As per Claim 2, Park et al., discloses the system of claim 1. Park et al. further teaches adding transactions accounts and/or payment cards to a group payment via NFC. However, Park et al. fails to disclose wherein the computing device further comprises a near field communication (NFC) reader and the machine-readable instructions that cause the computing device to obtain the first account identifier for the first transaction card further cause the computing device to at least read the first account identifier from the first transaction card using the NFC reader.
Rapowitz et al. teaches wherein the computing device further comprises a near field communication (NFC) reader and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises reading the first account identifier from the first transaction card with the NFC reader (pg.7, ¶ [0083] discusses both the user device and contactless card may be enabled with NFC technology. The user and the card are in close contact with each other so that they can exchange information within the communication field).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenized payments before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Park et al.-O’Regan combination to include the ability to receive payment information from a transaction card via near field communication as taught by Rapowitz to provide a system and method for distributing a transaction among multiple parties. Abstract
As per Claim 9, Park et al. discloses the method of claim 8. Park et al. further teaches adding transactions accounts and/or payment cards to a group payment via NFC.
However, Park et al. fails to disclose wherein the computing device further comprises a near field communication (NFC) reader and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises reading the first account identifier from the first transaction card with the NFC reader.
Rapowitz et al. teaches wherein the computing device further comprises a near field communication (NFC) reader and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises reading the first account identifier from the first transaction card with the NFC reader (pg.7, ¶ [0083] discusses both the user device and contactless card may be enabled with NFC technology. The user and the card are in close contact with each other so that they can exchange information within the communication field).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenized payments before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Park et al.-O’Regan combination to include the ability to receive payment information from a transaction card via near field communication as taught by Rapowitz to provide a system and method for distributing a transaction among multiple parties. Abstract
Claim(s) 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., U.S. Patent Application 2014/0222663 in view of O’Regan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108011 further in view of Davis et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0244495.
As per Claim 4, Park et al. and O’Regan discloses the claimed invention. Both Park et al. and O’Regan teach a system and method of adding cards to create a single tokenized transaction.
However, the Park et al.-O’Regan combination fails to disclose wherein the computing device further comprises a camera and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises: obtaining an image of the first transaction card; and performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the image of the first transaction card to obtain the first account identifier from the first transaction card.
Davis et al. teaches wherein the computing device further comprises a camera and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises: obtaining an image of the first transaction card; and performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the image of the first transaction card to obtain the first account identifier from the first transaction card (pg.9, ¶ [0135] discusses One simply uses pattern recognition (e.g., image fingerprinting, or OCRing) to recognize a payment card by the presented artwork and, in some implementations, read the user name, account number, expiration date, etc., from the artwork).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenized payments before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Park et al.-O’Regan combination to include the ability to as taught by Davis et al., to provide a system and method to easily select a desired card from among an assortment of cards. pg.1, ¶ [0005]
As per Claim 11, Park et al. and O’Regan discloses the method of the claimed invention. Both Park et al. and O’Regan teach a system and method of adding cards to create a single tokenized transaction.
However, the Park et al.-O’Regan combination fails to disclose wherein the computing device further comprises a camera and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises: obtaining an image of the first transaction card; and performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the image of the first transaction card to obtain the first account identifier from the first transaction card.
Davis et al. teaches wherein the computing device further comprises a camera and obtaining the first account identifier for the first transaction card further comprises: obtaining an image of the first transaction card; and performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the image of the first transaction card to obtain the first account identifier from the first transaction card (pg.9, ¶ [0135] discusses One simply uses pattern recognition (e.g., image fingerprinting, or OCRing) to recognize a payment card by the presented artwork and, in some implementations, read the user name, account number, expiration date, etc., from the artwork).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenized payments before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Park et al.-O’Regan combination to include the ability to as taught by Davis et al., to provide a system and method to easily select a desired card from among an assortment of cards. pg.1, ¶ [0005]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waller et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0338666 discusses a group payment vehicle and process for establishing and utilizing the group payment vehicle may be utilized to make proxy payments for group members and associate payment mechanisms with the group payment vehicle. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627