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 the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s replay dated 4/13/2026. Claim 14 has been canceled, claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, and 19 have been amended, and claims 1-13 and 15-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claims to not recite an abstract idea, and even assuming they do, that they provide for a practical application of the before identified abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts the claims are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite generally collecting information, analyzing information, processing the information (authenticating the user), and displaying the results, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “Database, card reader, processor, transaction circuit, input device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
independent claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A computing system of a first entity, the computing system comprising: a database retrievably storing a plurality of universal reference numbers including a universal reference number representing a non-payment account held with the first entity, the universal reference number stored in association with a set of data relating to the non-payment account of a user; and a transaction circuit configured to: access, using a card reader of an I/O assembly, a chip or a magstripe of a physical payment card issued by a second entity to detect, via a first channel of a plurality of channels of the physical payment card, the universal reference number stored on the physical payment card, the universal reference number corresponding to the non-payment account of the user; access, using the card reader, the chip or the magstripe of the physical payment card to detect a payment credential corresponding to a payment account of the user; authenticate the user according to a first authentication procedure performed using the payment credential accessed via the chip or the magstripe of the physical payment card; determine a security level of the first channel based on the universal reference number; select at least one second authentication procedure based on the security level of the first channel; authenticate the user according to the at least one second authentication procedure based on the security level of the first channel; and upon authenticating the user according to the first authentication procedure and the at least one second authentication procedure, present, via an input device of the I/O assembly, based on the universal reference number and the payment credential, a user interface to complete a transaction between the user and the first entity.
independent claim 10 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method implemented by a computing system of a first entity, the method comprising: accessing, using a card reader of an input/output (I/O) assembly, a chip or a magstripe of a physical payment card issued by a second entity to detect, via a first channel of a plurality of channels of the physical payment card, a universal reference number stored on the physical payment card, the universal reference number associated with a non-payment account of a user, the non-payment account held with the first entity; access, using the card reader, the chip or the magstripe of the physical payment card to detect a payment credential corresponding to a payment account of the user, the payment account held with the second entity; authenticating the user according to at least one authentication procedure performed using the payment credential of the physical payment card, the at least one authentication procedure selected at least by: determining a security level of the first channel based on the universal reference number; and selecting the at least one authentication procedure based on the security level of the first channel; and upon authenticating the user according to the at least one authentication procedure, presenting, via an input device of the I/O assembly, based on the universal reference number and the payment credential, a user interface to complete a transaction between the user and the first entity.
independent claim 19 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A non-transitory computer-readable memory comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of a first entity, cause the processor to: access, using a card reader of an input/output (I/O) assembly, a chip or a magstripe of a physical payment card issued by a second entity to detect, via a first channel of a plurality of channels of the physical payment card, a universal reference number stored on the physical payment card, the universal reference number associated with a non-payment account of a user, the non-payment account held with the first entity; access, using the card reader, the chip or the magstripe of the physical payment card to detect a payment credential corresponding to a payment account of the user, the payment account held with the second entity; authenticate the user according to at least one authentication procedure performed using the payment credential of the physical payment card, the at least one authentication procedure selected at least by: determining a security level of the first channel based on the universal reference number; and selecting the at least one authentication procedure based on the security level of the first channel; and upon authenticating the user according to the at least one authentication procedure, present, via an input device of the I/O assembly, based on the universal reference number and the payment credential, a user interface to complete a transaction between the user and the first entity.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “Database, card reader, processor, transaction circuit, input device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “Database, card reader, processor, transaction circuit, input device”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 5 additional elements – “Database, card reader, processor, transaction circuit, input device”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “Database, card reader, processor, transaction circuit, input device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “Database, card reader, processor, transaction circuit, input device” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights