DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on December 16, 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending and rejected.
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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that “the claims are not directed to commercial interactions and, instead, are directed to a system including a particular physical payment card having selectable options to modify functionality of the card.” Remarks at 11. However, even though the claims recite a payment card, they also recite processing a payment transaction and generating recommendations for subsequent transactions based on the environmental impact of the processed payment transaction, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that paragraphs 1-4 and 18-21 of the Specification “describe the shortcomings of current systems in use and identify improvements provided throughout the use of het multi-functional payment card and associated processing techniques.” Remarks at 13-14. However, these paragraphs of the Specification are describing a business problem and not a technological problem.
Applicant further argues that “the specific series of computer-executed instructions recited in claim 1 applies and uses any such abstract idea in a specific manner, thereby imposing a meaningful limit on the scope of independent claim 1, such that independent claim 1 amounts to more than a drafting effort to monopolize any such abstract idea.” Remarks at 14. However, the use of the judicial exception is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a computing environment.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not well understood, routine, or conventional. Remarks at 15. However, the rejection does not assert that the additional elements are well understood, routine, or convention. Instead, the claimed processor is being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected to for the following reason: These claims recite “the payment device.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the payment device.” Based on other amendments, it appears that Applicant intended to amend this to be “the payment card.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-7, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 8, 9, and 11-14, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 15, 16, and 18-20, which recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A computing platform, comprising:
at least one processor;
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and
a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
receive, via a payment processing device and from a payment card, the payment card including a generally planar surface having a display region and three selectable buttons, wherein each button of the three selectable physical buttons is associated with a different mode of processing, a selected mode of processing, wherein selection of the mode of processing causes display of an identifier in the display region;
receive, from the payment processing device, a request to process a transaction, wherein the request to process the transaction includes transaction details;
determine that the selected mode of processing corresponds to a cryptocurrency transaction;
responsive to determining that the selected mode of processing corresponds to a cryptocurrency transaction, execute a data exchange format process, wherein the data exchange format process orchestrates data transmission between the payment processing device and a cryptocurrency processing system;
transmit, to a peer-to-peer network of computing devices, the transaction details;
receive, from the peer-to-peer network of computing devices, validation of the requested transaction based on analysis of the transaction details;
responsive to receiving validation of the requested transaction, generate a block in a blockchain corresponding to the requested transaction;
process the requested transaction using cryptocurrency from an account associated with the payment card and a user associated with the payment card;
receive details of at least one of: a product being purchased via the transaction or a manufacturer of the product being purchased via the transaction, wherein the details are extracted from a machine-readable code associated with the product;
execute a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model includes inputting, to the machine learning model, the transaction details and the received details of at least one of: the product being purchased via the transaction or the manufacturer of the product being purchased via the transaction;
output, based on executing the machine learning model on the inputs, an environmental impact score associated with the transaction;
based on the environmental impact score of the transaction, generate one or more recommendations for subsequent transaction; and
transmit, to a user computing device, the one or more recommendations, wherein transmitting the one or more recommendations causes the one or more recommendations to be displayed by a display of the user computing device.
2. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein the generated one or more recommendations for subsequent transaction are generated by the machine learning model.
4. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein the payment device further includes a light emitting diode indicator associated with each physical button of the three selectable physical buttons, wherein selection of a physical button causes a corresponding light emitting diode to illuminate.
5. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein the payment device further includes a raised indicator corresponding to each physical button of the three selectable physical buttons.
6. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein generating a block in a blockchain corresponding to the requested transaction includes modifying the blockchain to add the generated block to the blockchain.
7. The computing platform of claim 1, further including instructions that, when executed, cause the computing platform to: compare the environmental impact score to one or more thresholds; and based on the comparing, generate the one or more recommendations for subsequent transaction.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to processing a payment transaction and generating recommendations for subsequent transactions based on the environmental impact of the processed payment transaction. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it involves processing payments and a commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a blockchain and machine learning environment. Employing well known technology within these environments to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to these environments, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Note Regarding Prior Art
This Office action does not include a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. Although individual limitations and concepts are known in the art, as shown below under “Relevant Prior Art,” the claimed embodiment as whole was not found in or made obvious by the prior art.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Kurani, U.S. Patent Number 11,741,470 B1. This reference teaches a payment user interface that allows a user to select cash, credit card, or cryptocurrency for a payment. See Figure 40 and associated text.
Maggio, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0308116 A1. Paragraph 0169 teaches “Physical powered smart card w/OTP functionality, as described above; with features that may include NFC tap and pay, with buttons for Cash, Bitcoin, possible Visa® Checkout/MasterPass® debit card integration or similar scheme-approved methods.”
Zakaras et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0307189 A1. Zarakas teaches a dynamic transaction card.
King et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0214668 A1. Paragraph 0166 teaches “The computation component 112 (e.g., via the alternatives component 1908) can use statistical methods or machine learning methods to calculate the environmental impact of manufacturing the given product design with the selected manufacturing characteristics from the historical data.”
Mostyn et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0383405 A1. This reference teaches a method of processing an environmental impact associated with a product in a supply chain. Specifically, paragraph 0179 teaches “Optionally, the environmental impact value evaluator 130 comprises a trained machine learning model which is configured to classify products. The model may be implemented as a convolutional neural network. The method 500 of processing an environmental impact may include additional steps of gathering data/statistics for use in this model.”
Normand et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0207552 A1. This reference teaches an environmental footprint computation module to compute environmental footprints per transaction using machine learning trained based on the classification of the financial transaction data into a predefined category of product and service and the rate of emission avoided per transaction.
The Provenance Team. “What’s the score? Transparency and the rise of eco rating,” https://www.provenance.org/news-insights/whats-the-score-transparency-and-the-rise-of-eco-rating (Aug. 21, 2023). This reference teaches Eco Scores, which are ratings for a product or brand’s environmental impact.
Ausems et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0150838 A1. This reference teaches an electronic payment acceptance device with different modes of operation that are associated with different modes of a light-emitting element.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693