DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the Restriction filed on June 29, 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of 1-6 in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Groups overlap in scope. See Remarks at 2. This is not found persuasive because each group has distinct limitations. Upon examining claims 1-6, the withdrawn claims were reviewed and would require additional searching and consideration. Given the limited time given for examination, examination of the additional claims would result in a serious burden. Applicant may file method and computer-readable medium claims that have the same scope as claims 1-6.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 7-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
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 1-6 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 1-6, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A system for managing restrictions on a virtual identifier, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive, from a user device, a request to generate the virtual identifier, wherein the request indicates a target user for the virtual identifier and a permanent identifier to associate with the virtual identifier;
determine, using a machine learning model, a set of restrictions to apply to the virtual identifier;
transmit, to the user device, an indication of the set of restrictions;
receive, from the user device, an approval of the set of restrictions;
activate the virtual identifier with the set of restrictions;
receive an indication of a set of events associated with the virtual identifier;
provide the indication of the set of events to the machine learning model in order to receive a modified restriction;
transmit, to the user device, an indication of the modified restriction;
receive, from the user device, an approval of the modified restriction; and
apply the modified restriction to the virtual identifier.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit, to a device associated with the target user, the indication of the set of restrictions.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit, to a device associated with the target user, the indication of the modified restriction.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to activate the virtual identifier, are configured to:
transmit, to an account manager, an instruction to associate the virtual identifier with the permanent identifier,
wherein the instruction indicates the set of restrictions.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to apply the modified restriction to the virtual identifier, are configured to:
transmit, to an account manager, an instruction that indicates the modified restriction.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to provide the indication of the set of events to the machine learning model, are configured to:
transmit, to a machine learning host associated with the machine learning model, a request including the indication of the set of events,
wherein the modified restriction is received from the machine learning host.
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 managing restrictions on a virtual identifier. This type of method of organizing human activity is a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, 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 (i.e., the claimed “one or more processors”) 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vudathu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0185222 A1 and Poetsch et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0178725 A1.
Claim 1:
Vudathu teaches:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: (see at least Vudathu, Figure 4 and associated text).
receive, from a user device, a request to generate the virtual identifier, wherein the request indicates a target user for the virtual identifier and a permanent identifier to associate with the virtual identifier (see at least Vudathu, paragraph 0056 (“In step 210, the third-party provider may call an API exposed by an API Gateway for a financial institution backend and may request a token to access financial institution backend payment services.”); paragraph 0057 (“In step 215, the API gateway may route the request to a token minting authority backend to mint the token for the customer and the third-party provider.”); paragraphs 0058-0059 (Although the reference does not explicitly state that the request indicates a target user and a permanent identifier, the dynamic rules engine needs to have received this data in order to operate.); paragraph 0061 (“In another embodiment, the use restrictions and/or limits may be associated with the token and may be stored in a database, such as a rules/restrictions database. For example, the use restrictions or limits may be mapped to the token, the customer, combinations, etc.”)).
determine, using a machine learning model, a set of restrictions to apply to the virtual identifier (see at least Vudathu, paragraph 0059 (“In step 230, the token minting computer program may use a dynamic rules engine to apply the rules and determine use restriction(s) or limit(s) on the token. In one embodiment, the dynamic rules engine may be a trained machine learning engine that is trained on historical data, such a historical transaction data, for the customer, other customers, etc. The limits may include merchant-based restrictions, dollar restrictions, number of transactions limitations, geographic restrictions, combinations, etc.”)).
activate the virtual identifier with the set of restrictions (see at least Vudathu, paragraphs 0060-0062 (The token is minted and provided to a user device so that it can be used.)).
receive an indication of a set of events associated with the virtual identifier; provide the indication of the set of events to the machine learning model in order to receive a modified restriction; transmit, to the user device, an indication of the modified restriction (see at least Vudathu, paragraph 0033 (“Embodiments may include an artificial intelligence and/or a trained machine learning engine that may dynamically update the rules based on, for example, the customer data, transactions, merchant information, etc.”)).
Vudathu does not explicitly teach, but Poetsch, however, does teach:
transmit, to the user device, an indication of the set of restrictions; receive, from the user device, an approval of the set of restrictions (see at least Poetsch, paragraph 0078 (“In still further embodiments, system 100 may provide the account holder with the option of approving the suggested update as a one-time exception or as the new general transaction restriction parameter moving forward.”); paragraph 0101).
receive, from the user device, an approval of the modified restriction; and apply the modified restriction to the virtual identifier (see at least Poetsch, paragraph 0078 (“In still further embodiments, system 100 may provide the account holder with the option of approving the suggested update as a one-time exception or as the new general transaction restriction parameter moving forward.”); paragraph 0101).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Poetsch’s method of providing account restrictions to a user for approval with Vudathu’s limited use tokens that have rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing an account holder with the ability to determine whether account restrictions should be applied to an account because an account holder will be in the best position to determine what restrictions will help prevent fraud and which restrictions may be overly restrictive.
Claim 2:
Vudathu does not explicitly teach, but Poetsch, however, does teach:
transmit, to a device associated with the target user, the indication of the set of restrictions (see at least Poetsch, Figure 5; paragraph 0104 (Restrictions are displayed on an account holder’s device.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Poetsch’s method of providing account restrictions to a user for approval with Vudathu’s limited use tokens that have rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing an account holder with the ability to determine whether account restrictions should be applied to an account because an account holder will be in the best position to determine what restrictions will help prevent fraud and which restrictions may be overly restrictive. It is also valuable for a user to receive information regarding the restrictions so that the user is aware of what can and cannot be done with the account.
Claim 3:
Vudathu does not explicitly teach, but Poetsch, however, does teach:
transmit, to a device associated with the target user, the indication of the modified restriction (see at least Poetsch, Figure 5; paragraph 0078 (“In still further embodiments, system 100 may provide the account holder with the option of approving the suggested update as a one-time exception or as the new general transaction restriction parameter moving forward.”); paragraph 0101; paragraph 0104 (Restrictions are displayed on an account holder’s device.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Poetsch’s method of providing account restrictions to a user for approval with Vudathu’s limited use tokens that have rules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing an account holder with the ability to determine whether account restrictions should be applied to an account because an account holder will be in the best position to determine what restrictions will help prevent fraud and which restrictions may be overly restrictive. It is also valuable for a user to receive information regarding the restrictions so that the user is aware of what can and cannot be done with the account.
Claim 4:
Vudathu further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors, to activate the virtual identifier, are configured to: transmit, to an account manager, an instruction to associate the virtual identifier with the permanent identifier, wherein the instruction indicates the set of restrictions (see at least Vudathu, paragraph 0061 (“In another embodiment, the use restrictions and/or limits may be associated with the token and may be stored in a database, such as a rules/restrictions database. For example, the use restrictions or limits may be mapped to the token, the customer, combinations, etc.”)).
Claim 5:
Vudathu further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors, to apply the modified restriction to the virtual identifier, are configured to: transmit, to an account manager, an instruction that indicates the modified restriction (see at least Vudathu, paragraph 0033 (“Embodiments may include an artificial intelligence and/or a trained machine learning engine that may dynamically update the rules based on, for example, the customer data, transactions, merchant information, etc.”); paragraph 0061 (“In another embodiment, the use restrictions and/or limits may be associated with the token and may be stored in a database, such as a rules/restrictions database. For example, the use restrictions or limits may be mapped to the token, the customer, combinations, etc.”)).
Claim 6:
Vudathu further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors, to provide the indication of the set of events to the machine learning model, are configured to: transmit, to a machine learning host associated with the machine learning model, a request including the indication of the set of events, wherein the modified restriction is received from the machine learning host (see at least Vudathu, paragraph 0059 (“In step 230, the token minting computer program may use a dynamic rules engine to apply the rules and determine use restriction(s) or limit(s) on the token. In one embodiment, the dynamic rules engine may be a trained machine learning engine that is trained on historical data, such a historical transaction data, for the customer, other customers, etc. The limits may include merchant-based restrictions, dollar restrictions, number of transactions limitations, geographic restrictions, combinations, etc.”)).
Relevant Prior Art
The following reference is relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Fisher et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,556,936 B1. This reference teaches payment card control rules.
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
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
Prosecution Insights