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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 26th of June 2026.
Amendment to the specification was noted.
No claims were amended.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 07/09/2026 and 04/16/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Prior Arts Search
This application is a continuation of a previously allowed patent. A new search was conducted on the broadened claims; however, no relevant prior art was identified to support rejections under §102 and §103.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26th of June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Claim 1 "improves security in a process for transferring value" because the user supplies verification information "that is not shown on the stored-value card," and the transfer occurs only after ownership is successfully verified. Applicant further contends this is a technical improvement to the electronic device and not merely use of a computer as a tool.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the claim language quoted in the remarks, the claimed sequence requests verification information, receives identifying information from the stored-value card, compares the two sets of information to verify ownership, and conditionally transfers stored value. These limitations implement the identified commercial interaction, verifying an owner before completing a stored-value-card transaction, rather than improving the operation of the electronic device, display, radio, processor, or stored-value card itself. The claim does not recite a new authentication algorithm, cryptographic technique, challenge-response protocol, radio protocol, data structure, or other technological mechanism that changes how the device operates. Instead, the electronic device, display, and short-range communication hardware are used to collect, compare, communicate, and act on information. The security benefit therefore follows from applying the verification rule before permitting the transaction, not from a claimed improvement to computer or communications technology.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Because the requested verification information cannot be ascertained from the card itself, an unauthorized person possessing the card would be unable to provide the required information, thereby improving security.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation narrows the content or source of the information used for identity verification, but it does not recite a technological manner of generating, protecting, transmitting, or validating that information. At the level claimed, the limitation requires use of one item of information obtained from the card and another item of information supplied by the user, followed by a comparison. Selecting verification information that is not printed or otherwise shown on the card may make the verification rule harder for an unauthorized user to satisfy, but that is a improvement to the reliability of the commercial authentication process, not an improvement to the underlying electronic device or communications technology. The claim therefore still uses the device as a tool to apply the verification requirement.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “The specification and figures show a non-limiting embodiment in which the device obtains card information, requests personal verification information, verifies ownership, and then permits transfer, and the cited paragraphs describe enhanced security and prevention of unauthorized provisioning.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification is relevant to understanding the asserted improvement, but the eligibility inquiry ultimately turns on what the claim itself requires. The cited disclosure explains the intended security result and gives examples of personal information, such as birth date or mailing address. Claim 1, however, does not require a particular technical security architecture that produces the result. The broad claimed steps remain requesting information, receiving information, comparing information, determining whether verification succeeds, and transferring value based on that determination. The specification therefore does not establish that the claim, as broadly written, reflects a specific improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Claim 2 improves the user interface by "quickly and efficiently informing the user" when verification information is incorrect and prompting the user to provide the correct information.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2, as quoted, adds generating feedback that verification was unsuccessful and requesting verification information again. Those steps communicate the result of the verification process and solicit another user input. They do not recite a specific improvement to graphical-user-interface technology, display operation, input processing, or computer functionality. Improving the speed or convenience with which a user receives transactional feedback is not, without a claimed technological mechanism, an improvement to the computer itself. The additional limitations therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Claim 3 adds security because, after value is transferred to the virtual card, the electronic device sends a request to deactivate the stored-value card, thereby preventing an unauthorized user from later accessing the card.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deactivating the source card after the transfer is a transaction control or account management rule applied after the value transfer. The claim does not recite a new technical technique for deactivation or a change to the operation of the server, device, or card. Rather, the device transmits a request that the server change the card's status. The limitation may further the business/security objective of preventing subsequent use, but it does not improve the functioning of the technology used to implement that objective.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Claim 9 improves operability because displaying the value of the virtual card allows the user to quickly see the amount available, particularly when multiple virtual cards are stored on the device.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The added step displays transactional/account information after the value transfer. Claim 9 does not recite a particular display architecture, data-processing technique, or graphical arrangement that improves display technology. The benefit asserted by Applicant is that the user can more readily understand the information presented. Presentation of financial information for user convenience, without a technological improvement in how the computer operates, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9, at least, combine an improved user interface, additional security, and enhanced device operability such that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been considered as ordered combinations, not as isolated fragments. Viewed as a whole, the claimed sequence remains: obtain identifying information from a stored-value card; obtain user verification information; compare the information; decide whether the user is verified; condition the transfer on that decision; and, in the dependent claims, provide failure feedback, deactivate the source card, or display the resulting value. The additional limitations advance or report the same transaction and security objective, but they do not impose a meaningful technological limit on the judicial exception. The practical application analysis does not turn on whether individual elements are conventional; rather, the question is whether the additional elements, individually and in combination, apply the exception in a manner that improves technology or otherwise meaningfully limits the exception. Here they do not.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “The pending claims are similar to eligible claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 because both involve verifying ownership/identity before permitting a financial transaction and allegedly use a non-conventional combination of steps to address unauthorized use.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analogy is not persuasive because the feature that made Example 35 claims 2 and 3 eligible is materially more specific than the sequence recited here. Example 35 claim 2 required, among other things, an ATM-generated random code, transmission of that code to a mobile device, generation of an image containing encrypted code data in response to the random code, and decryption/analysis of the code data at the ATM. Example 35 claim 3 similarly required an ATM-generated random code, a mobile-device-generated confirmation code responsive to the random code, analysis of the codes, and control of ATM keypad access based on that analysis. The USPTO explained that those ordered combinations departed from the routine ATM verification sequence and constituted a specific, non-conventional implementation. By contrast, the present claim language quoted in the remarks requires requesting user verification information, receiving card identifying information, comparing the information, and transferring value if verification succeeds. It does not require a random challenge, encrypted response, generated image or confirmation code, decryption, or a comparable device-to-device control sequence. Thus, Example 35 supports the distinction: merely gathering and comparing authentication information is not enough; eligibility in claims 2 and 3 depended on the particular non-conventional sequence of additional elements.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “Even if the claims use generic computer components, the combination allegedly operates in a non-conventional and non-generic manner because it verifies a card owner using information not shown on the card before transferring value to a virtual card.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not identified, in the claim language quoted in the remarks, a specific unconventional technological arrangement comparable to the random-code/encrypted-response architecture in Example 35. The asserted inventive concept largely restates the abstract verification requirement itself: obtain identifying information, obtain separate verification information, compare them, and permit the transaction when the comparison verifies ownership. A purported inventive concept cannot rest solely on performing the abstract idea more securely or accurately.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-19, Applicant argues “The dependent limitations provide additional security and operability improvements that amount to significantly more.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The dependent limitations do not supply the missing inventive concept. Claim 2 adds notification and re-prompting after a failed comparison; claim 3 adds a request to deactivate the source card after transfer; and claim 9 adds display of the resulting stored value. Those limitations either communicate the outcome of the verification/transfer process or administer the transaction after the core decision has been made. Absent a claimed non-conventional technological implementation, their ordered combination does not transform the underlying verification and transfer process into patent eligible subject matter.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…requesting verification information to verify ownership of a stored-value card, wherein the stored-value card has a stored value; receiving, via the one or more input devices, input from a user of the electronic device that includes verification information for verifying ownership of the stored-value card, wherein the verification information includes information that is not shown on the stored-value card; displaying, on the display of the electronic device, a prompt to place the electronic device within communication range of the stored-value card; receiving, by the one or more short-range communication radios, identifying information from the stored-value card; verifying ownership of the stored-value card by comparing the verification information with the identifying information; and in accordance with a determination that verification of ownership is successful: transferring at least some of the stored value from the stored-value card to a virtual card stored on the electronic device.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely verifying and processing stored-value card transaction. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., display, short-range communication radios, input devices, processors, stored-value card). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., display, short-range communication radios, input devices, processors, stored-value card) to receive/transmit/display data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., display, short-range communication radios, input devices, processors, stored-value card) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 - (e.g., display, short-range communication radios, input devices, processors, stored-value card) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving/displaying of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 18 and 19.
Dependent claims 2-17 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 2, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…further including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that verification of ownership is not successful: generating feedback indicating that verification of ownership was not successful; and requesting verification information to verify ownership of the stored-value card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 3, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein transferring at least some of the stored value from the stored-value card to the virtual card stored on the electronic device includes: removing the stored value from the stored-value card; and transmitting a request to a server to deactivate the stored-value card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 4, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the stored-value card is a stored-value transit card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 5, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the virtual card is a transit virtual card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 6, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the virtual card is a stored-value virtual card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 7, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the verification information is a card account number of the stored-value card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 8, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the electronic device does not present the card account number of the stored-value card prior to receiving, via the one or more input devices, input from the user of the electronic device that includes verification information for verifying ownership of the stored-value card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 9, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites using interface to “subsequent to transferring at least some of the stored value from the stored-value card to the virtual card stored on the electronic device: displaying, on the display, a stored value of the virtual card.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data displaying and transmitting, which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claim 10, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites using interface to “subsequent to transferring at least some of the stored value from the stored-value card to the virtual card stored on the electronic device: displaying transit plan information of the virtual card, the transit plan information based on the transferred at least some of the stored value.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data displaying and transmitting, which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claim 11, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites using interface to “subsequent to transferring at least some of the stored value from the stored-value card to the virtual card stored on the electronic device: displaying one or more of: a balance of the virtual card, a username of an account registered to the virtual card, and transit plan information of the virtual card.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data displaying and transmitting, which is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claim 12, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the verification information is information that is personal to a registered user of the stored-value card.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 13, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…in accordance with a determination that the electronic device does not have another linked transit account, designating an account of the virtual card to be made available for use without checking authentication; and in accordance with a determination that the electronic device has one or more other linked transit accounts, forgoing designating the account of the virtual card to be made available for use without checking authentication.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 14, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…in accordance with a determination that the electronic device does not have another linked transit account: in accordance with receiving user input indicating a desire not to have accounts be made available for use without checking authentication, forgoing designating the account of the virtual card to be made available for use without checking authentication.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 15, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…receiving user input indicating a desire not to have accounts be made available for use without checking authentication; and in response to receiving the user input indicating the desire not to have accounts be made available for use without checking authentication, designating an account of the virtual card to not be made available for use without checking authentication.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 16, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…receiving user input selecting an account to be made available for use without checking authentication; and in response to receiving the user input selecting the account to be made available for use without checking authentication, designating the selected account to be made available for use without checking authentication.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 17, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites using interface to “wherein prior to receiving the card account number of the stored-value card and prior to verifying ownership of the stored-value card, the virtual card is stored on the electronic device.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data storing, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 09/09/2026
Prosecution Insights