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
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 10/31/2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
The claims recite “token service provider.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a token service provider can be considered software that manages and issues token, often designed to be modular and scalable.
The claims recite a “domain index.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a domain index is a specialized database index designed to optimize queries for complex, domain-specific data types.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 10 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 15 recites a product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claims 1, 10 and 15 recite a computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a request routed from a merchant to process a card-not-present transaction, the card-not-present transaction includes a merchant provisioned token issued for the merchant by a token service provider, the request received at an alternate payment processor different from the token service provider and includes token information, the merchant provisioned token having corresponding domain information within a domain index stored in a database inaccessible to the alternate payment provider, wherein the merchant provisioned token is based on a domain restriction not enforced by the token service provider when the merchant provisioned token is routed to the alternate payment processor; transmitting the merchant provisioned token to the token service provider for primary account number (PAN) mapping of the merchant provisioned token; receiving, from the token service provider, token reference information responsive to the transmitting in addition to a PAN from the PAN mapping; and based on the domain restriction not being enforced and the database having the domain index being inaccessible to the alternative payment provider, communicating an indication that identifies whether there is a match between the token information received from the merchant and the token reference information received from the token service provider with an authorization response from an issuer determined using the PAN. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. Also, the claims limitations are managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Lastly, the claim limitations are a fundamental economic practice, such as payment processing. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. 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 above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of computer, processors, computer storage media readable instructions, system, computer storage media, token service provider, database, domain index, alternate payment processor, token, and merchant provisioned token. The additional elements of a computer, processors, computer storage media readable instructions, system, computer storage media, token service provider, database, domain index, alternate payment processor, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a token and merchant provisioned token are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (computer, processors, computer storage media readable instructions, system, computer storage media, token service provider, database, domain index, alternate payment processor, token, and merchant provisioned token) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites further comprising communicating the token reference information with an authorization request having the PAN, the authorization request communicated to the issuer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites further comprising declining the card-not-present transaction when there is no match between the token information from the merchant and the token reference information from the token service provider. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the request routed from the merchant is routed through a merchant acquirer and the indication identifying whether there is a match is communicated to the merchant acquirer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the token service provider is the issuer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein communicating the indication is based on the token service provider not verifying the domain restriction for the merchant provisioned token in response to the PAN mapping. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of merchant provisioned token are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites, wherein the token information from the merchant and the token reference information from the token service provider each comprise a token requestor identification (ID) identifying the merchant, and the indication identifies whether there is a match between a token requestor ID of the token information and a token requestor ID of the token reference information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the token information from the merchant and the token reference information from the token service provider each comprise a type of transaction, and the indication identifies whether there is a match between a type of transaction of the token information and a type of transaction of the token reference information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the merchant provisioned token was provisioned specifically for an online domain of the merchant. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of online domain are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of merchant provisioned token are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites further comprising communicating the token reference information from the token service provider with an authorization request having the PAN, the authorization request communicated to the issuer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 12 recites further comprising declining the card-not-present transaction when there is no match between the token requestor ID of the token reference information from the merchant and the token requestor ID received from the token service provider within the token reference information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein communicating the indication is based on the token service provider not verifying a domain restriction for the merchant provisioned token. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of merchant provisioned token are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the token service provider is the issuer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 16 recites further comprising communicating the token reference information with an authorization request having the PAN, the authorization request communicated to the issuer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Claim 17 recites further comprising declining the card-not-present transaction when there is no match between the transaction type received by the merchant and the transaction type as indicated by the token reference information received from the token service provider. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein communicating the indication is based on the token service provider not verifying a domain restriction for the merchant provisioned token. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of merchant provisioned token are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the token service provider is the issuer. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of token service provider are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Claim 20 recites wherein the merchant provisioned token was provisioned specifically for an online domain of the merchant. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of online domain are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of merchant provisioned token are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues a recent Director Squires policy September 26, 2025 memo (Arguments, pg. 9-11). Examiner notes, that the memo did not change USPTO Examiner guidance regarding patent eligibility, and did not say that all patent applications are eligible. Further, as an ordered combination or as “claims as a whole,” the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Applicant argues that “the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement in the field of payment processing for multi-payment processor environment where domain control access is restricted…[and] when considered together, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” (Applicant arguments, pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The current amendments as well as the recently recited claim limitations add information, which could potentially be restricted information, but the claims are just narrowing the information or inputted and outputted in the system, and there is nothing technical that happens in the process. In other words, the claims are just using alternate information to process a payment. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant further argues that the claims are “significantly more” than the abstract idea (Applicant arguments, pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. As noted by Applicants arguments (Pg. 12), the claims merely take a token, with a domain index, and compare token information with reference information from the token service provider. There is no indication in either the Specification or the claims for the instant application that there is any improvement to existing technology. Therefore, the subject claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and the subject rejections are maintained.
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 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693