DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1-9 and 11. No claims have been added or have been canceled. Claim 10 was canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 1-9 and 11 remain pending in this application. 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 and amendments filed on 18 March 2026 with respect to:
objection to claims 1-3, 9 and 11,
rejections of claims 1-9 and 11 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 1-9 and 11 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al (US Pub. No. 20220253345 A1) in view of Prabhune et al (US Pub. No. 20180330353 A1),
rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable McClure in view of Prabhune, in further view of Official Notice,
rejections of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable McClure in view of Prabhune, in further view of Burch et al (US Pub. No. 20180060847 A1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections and, in turn, withdraws objections and rejections.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
In view of Applicant’s voluminous response to subject matter eligibility, Examiner notes much of the amended claim language is written with “wherein” clauses which are given limited patentable weight. For example, in the representative limitation of claim 1:
preparing, by a Merchant, an array of User identifiers (IDs) to be used for payment authorisation, wherein the Merchant prepares the array of user IDs using a server of the Merchant, wherein each of the User IDs comprises a primary account number (PAN) related to each User's payment card and wherein the array of User IDs comprises a list related to a plurality of PAN s, wherein each PAN of the plurality of PAN s relates to a User, wherein the array of Use IDs is an array of User IDs of winners of a Raffle Sale processed by a Financial Institution,
the phrase “wherein the Merchant prepares the array of user IDs using a server of the Merchant” does not clearly claim “preparing by the server, an array of user IDs” (emphasis added). As written, the phrase “wherein the Merchant prepares the array of user IDs using a server of the Merchant” is merely a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim.
In the representative limitation of claim 1:
sending, by the Merchant, a request to receive the result of the payment authorisation assessment for the related array of User IDs, wherein the Merchant calls a transaction confirmation checkpoint of the Financial Institution and contacts a transaction conformation endpoint of the Financial Institution to find out whether transactions of all User IDs are successful,
the phrase “wherein the Merchant calls a transaction confirmation checkpoint of the Financial Institution and contacts a transaction conformation endpoint of the Financial Institution” is not, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, an automated step. As such, the phrase does not convey an improvement to technology.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A, Prong One in that the claims are “drawn to a particular technical implementation: bulk array preparation by the Merchant, server-to-server transmission to the Financial Institution, per-User authorization
processing for an array, Merchant-side checkpoint/endpoint confirmation, and array-formatted return of the results“ [remarks page 16]. Examiner respectfully disagrees in that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of authorizing a payments which is a fundamental business practice grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A, Prong Two contending that the additional elements integrate any alleged exception into a practical application of an abstract idea [remarks pages 16 and 17], and under Step 2B contending that the claims “require an ordered combination in which: the Merchant prepares a batch array of User IDs; the Merchant server forwards that array to the Financial Institution server; the Financial Institution performs per-User authorization assessments” [remarks pages 19 and 20]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As with determining a practical application to an abstract idea, Step 2A, Prong Two, types of limitations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) – subject matter eligibility under Step 2B - include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b),
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c),
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Further, limitations also indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not contain any of these “types” of aforementioned limitations.
Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f),
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g),
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h),
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention merely appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. This is explained in detail in the revised 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections recited herein.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility in that “The specification identifies the technical and operational problem faced by the Merchant after a raffle sale: if the Merchant must confirm authorization ‘of every single payment of every single Winner,’ the checkout becomes repetitive and time consuming” [remarks page 17]. Examiner respectfully disagrees on several points.
First, the “operational problem faced by the Merchant after a raffle sale” (emphasis added) is irrelevant in that “a Raffle Sale” is only addressed in the independent claim, and is a statement of intended use – i.e. “wherein the array of Use IDs is an array of User IDs of winners of a Raffle Sale processed by a Financial Institution”
Second, the comments regarding the checkout becoming “repetitive and time consuming, Examiner cites MPEP 2106.05(a) which notes that accelerating an analyzing process, where the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer, has been found to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
Applicant other arguments regarding subject matter eligibility are explained in detail in the revised 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections recited herein.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application, filed on 08 November 2024 claims foreign priority to European Patent Application 23209212.2, filed 10 November 2023. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 10 November 2023.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art
Examiner notes Applicant has not traversed the statements of Official Notice made in the art rejections of the prior office action regarding the well known nature of dependent claim 2. Hence, the Official Notice taken that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that:
adding an Array ID to the array of User IDs, to facilitate the identification of the array;
is now formally established on record to be applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) as per MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are objected to because the term “and/or” as in “product and/or service” should be written “or”. Correctio is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The term "may" as in “the Database may have the form” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "may have the form" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation:
wherein the Database may have the form of an AI engine and is adapted to output specific scores relating to transactions and behaviour linked to a specific entered PAN.
will be interpreted to be not further limiting. Correction is required.:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of authorizing a payments which is a fundamental business practice grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))). Claims recite:
preparing, by a Merchant, an array of User identifiers (IDs) to be used for payment authorisation,
sending, by the Merchant, the array of User IDs to the Financial Institution with a request to provide a payment authorisation for each of the User ID's in the array,
receiving, by the Financial Institution, the array of User ID's and the request,
assessing, by the Financial Institution, for each of the User IDs in the array whether a payment authorisation can be provided,
sending, by the Merchant, a request to receive the result of the payment authorisation assessment for the related array of User IDs,
wherein the Merchant calls a transaction confirmation checkpoint of the Financial Institution and contacts a transaction conformation endpoint of the Financial Institution to find out whether transactions of all User IDs are successful, and
sending, by the Financial Institution, the result of the payment authorisation assessment to the Merchant, in an array.
Limitations such as:
wherein each of the User IDs comprises a primary account number (PAN) related to each User's payment card and wherein the array of User IDs comprises a list related to a plurality of PANs, wherein each PAN of the plurality of PANs relates to a User, wherein the array of Use IDs is an array of User IDs of winners of a Raffle Sale processed by a Financial Institution; and
wherein an outcome of the authorisation requests is formatted by the Financial Institution in an array (and forwarded to the Merchant using electronic means).
are merely descriptions of data which do not further limit the claim or affect subject matter eligibility. The limitation ”wherein the Merchant prepares the array of user IDs using a server of the Merchant” does not convey an active method step of “preparing by the Merchant the array…”; at best, this amounts to no more than a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as:
wherein the Financial Institution receives the array and the request in electronic format on a server of the Financial Institution
wherein the Financial Institution receives the array and the request in electronic format on a server of the Financial Institution; and
using the server of the Financial Institution; and
forwarding to the Merchant using electronic means
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than apply the method steps to a computerized environment to automate the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of authorizing a payment using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 2-6 and 8 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of authorizing a payment.
In claim 7, the feature of an AI-engine adds technology to the abstract idea of the independent claim. However, an AI-engine is generic technological component, and its use is in its normal, expected, and routine manner. The components are recited at a high level of generality which do not improve another technology or technical field nor the functioning of the computer itself.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the fundamental business practice in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 9 otherwise styled as a system, and claim 11 styled as a computer-readable storage medium would be subject to the same analysis.
In view of the system of claim 9 and the computer readable medium of claim 11:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a processor and a computer-readable storage medium represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of authorizing a payment using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3, 4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al (US Pub. No. 20220253345 A1) in view of Prabhune et al (US Pub. No. 20180330353 A1), in further view of Brand et al (US Pub. No. 20150006392 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 11, McClure teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a first computer from a second computer, a stateless API request message comprising update value data, a consensus token, and a user identifier; determining, by the first computer, whether or not the consensus token matches a previously stored consensus token; if the consensus token matches the previously stored consensus token, retrieving, by the first computer, stored value data from a value data database based on the user identifier; updating, by the first computer, the stored value data with the update value data; generating, by the first computer, an API response message comprising an indication of the update; and transmitting, by the first computer to the second computer, the API response message [0006]. He teaches:
preparing, by a Merchant, … User identifiers (IDs) to be used for payment authorization – [0031] “a PAN (primary account number or ‘account number’)”, and [0105],wherein the Merchant prepares the array of user IDs using a server of the Merchant, wherein each of the User IDs comprises a primary account number (PAN) related to each User's payment card and wherein the array of User IDs comprises a list related to a plurality of PAN s, wherein each PAN of the plurality of PAN s relates to a User – [0031];
sending, by the Merchant, the array of User ID's to a Financial Institution with the request to provide a payment authorisation for each of the User IDs in the array – [0032],wherein the Financial Institution receives the array and the request in electronic format on a server of the Financial Institution,
receiving, by the Financial Institution, the array of User ID's and the request– [0049], [0055] and [0127],
sending, by the Merchant, a request to receive the result of the payment authorisation assessment for the related array of User IDs - [0047], [0051] and [0054]; and
sending, by the Financial Institution, the result of the payment authorisation assessment to the Merchant, in an array – [0047], [0051] and [0054].wherein an outcome of the authorisation requests is formatted by the Financial Institution in an array and forwarded to the Merchant using electronic means – [Id.].
McClure does not explicitly disclose:
assessing, by the Financial Institution, for each of the User ID's in the array whether a payment authorisation can be provided. using the server of the Financial Institution,
However, Prabhune teaches systems and methods which permit the issuers involved in the cross-border transactions, and other associated entities [0011]. He teaches an assessment engine which identifies a certain transaction, and retrieves a fee schedule for the issuer to which the transaction is directed [Id.]. He teaches the assessment engine identifying the authorization message for the transaction, wherein the authorization message is identified, based on a PAN (primary account number) included in the authorization message [0055]. The PAN is included in a range of PANs associated with the issuer and/or associated with one or more particular fees and/or fee schedules by the issuer [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure’s disclosure to include an assessment engine using primary account numbers included in authorization messages as taught by Prabhune in order to tune fees associated with cross-border transactions based on dimensions associated with the transactions and/or payment accounts to which the transactions are directed - Prabhune [0011].
Neither McClure nor Prabhune explicitly discloses:
preparing, by a Merchant, an array of User identifiers (IDs) to be used for payment authorization,wherein the array of Use IDs is an array of User IDs of winners of a Raffle Sale processed by a Financial Institution; and
wherein the Merchant calls a transaction confirmation checkpoint of the Financial Institution and contacts a transaction conformation endpoint of the Financial Institution to find out whether transactions of all User IDs are successful
However, Brand teaches a method for conducting batched transaction authorizations, the method being conducted at an authentication server and including the steps of: establishing a secure connection over a telecommunication network between the authentication server and a mobile device of an authorised account user, and transmitting a batched transactions list including details of multiple transactions loaded against an account and awaiting authorisation [0008]-[0010]. He teaches receiving input from the user indicating an approval or rejection of two or more of the displayed transactions and storing each approval or rejection of a transaction as an authorisation result [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure’s disclosure to include batched transaction authorizations as taught by Brand because it is possible to conduct bulk authorizations of pre-loaded transactions that may be subjected to stricter security requirements due to increased complexity in securing online communications – Brand [0005].
Examiner notes that the limitation:
wherein the array of Use IDs is an array of User IDs of winners of a Raffle Sale processed by a Financial Institution
is given limited patentable weight in that it is merely a statement of intended use.
Regarding claim 3, McClure teaches the Financial Institution is the financial institution responsible for the processing of payments related to the provided PAN – [0027].
Regarding claim 4, neither McClure nor Prabhune explicitly discloses:
Informing, by the Merchant, for each User of the User IDs whether the payment authorisation relating to the User ID has been provided.
However, Brand teaches receiving input from the user indicating an approval or rejection of two or more of the displayed transactions [0019] as discussed in the rejection of claim 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure’s disclosure to include indicating approval or rejection of transactions as taught by Brand because one would have recognized that doing so is old and well known in doing business.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable McClure in view of Prabhune, in further view of Brand, in further view of AAPA.
Regarding claim 2, neither McClure, Prabhune nor Brand disclose adding an Array ID to the array of User ID's, to facilitate the identification of the array.
However, AAPA teaches that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do so because such identifiers are useful in tracking information.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable McClure in view of Prabhune, in further view of Brand, in further view of Burch et al (US Pub. No. 20180060847 A1).
Regarding claim 5, neither McClure, Prabhune nor Brand explicitly discloses a Raffle Sale processed by the Financial Institution.
However, Burch teaches a system and method for the self-serve sale of tickets in licensed raffles to purchasors [0010]. The method of self-serve electronic ticket sales to purchasors in a plurality of licensed raffles comprises a plurality of steps, the first of which is providing a raffle server which is operatively connected to a communications network for communication with at least one client device of a purchaser [Id.]. Burch teaches:
putting on sale, by the Merchant, of a product and/or a service via a Raffle Sale, wherein a number of selected Winners from a group of Raffle Sale participants receive the right to purchase said product and/or service – [0011] “criteria used to determine the qualification of the purchasor to buy tickets in particular raffles”,
defining, by the Merchant, criteria for a selection of Winners from a group of Raffle Sale participants – [0016] “Each raffle record must contain details of an applicable license, to verify its legality and compliance with lottery sales) regulations, and the ticket sales transactions”, [0028] “criteria used to determine the qualification of the purchasor to buy tickets in particular raffles”, and [0054] “selecting the purchase details the tickets to be purchased and entering electronic payment details in respect of the ticket purchase”,
requesting, by a User, to be added to the group of Raffle Sale participants and presenting, by said User, the PAN as payment method – [0013],
receiving, by the Merchant, the request of the User to be added to the group of Raffle participants and the PAN related with the User – [0013] “allowing the purchasor having a purchase record, via the user interface of a client device, to authenticate themselves to the raffle server and subsequently receive and view via the user interface of the client device the details of any available raffles”,
sending, by the Merchant, the PAN of the User as a participant to the Raffle Sale, to the Financial Institution, responsible for the payment processing of payments linked with the PAN – [0025] “identifying particulars of the purchasor”, [0027] “the purchasor record identifier and electronic payment details”,
receiving, by the Financial Institution, the PAN of the User and adding the User to a group of Raffle Sale participants – [0013],
applying, by the Financial Institution, the criteria for the selection of Winners from the group of Raffle Sale participants to thereby select a number of Winners - [0028] “select at least one winning ticket therefrom, and transmit the details of the at least one winning ticket to the vendor along with settling the monetary proceeds of the raffle to the vendor and the at least one winner”,
sending, by the Financial Institution, a list of selected Winners to the Merchant –[0024] “the system can automatically choose one or more winning tickets from the ticket records in the ticket database corresponding to sales”,
receiving, by the Merchant, the list of selected Winners of the Raffle Sale – [0028], and
informing, by the Merchant, the selected Winners and processing the payment of the product and/or service for the selected Winners – [0012] and [0026] “a payment gateway, … the raffle server can process electronic payments for ticket sales”, and [0150].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure’s disclosure to include raffle sales as taught by Burch because the system can automatically complete and facilitate the process of choosing one or more winning tickets corresponding to sales of a particular raffle, and closing fulfillment or paying out in the raffle - Burch [0024].
Regarding claim 6, neither McClure nor Prabhune explicitly discloses:
adding, by the Financial Institution, an anonym tag to the PAN to obtain an anonym RaffleID linked to the PAN,wherein to each PAN an anonvm tag: is attached that is used as anonym RaffleID linked to the PAN of the User.
However, Burch teaches a ticket database comprising a plurality of ticket records, each ticket record corresponding to ticket sold in a raffle and comprising ticket parameters of the tickets sold, a link to the radical [sic] record of the raffle and a link to the purchasor record of the purchasor [0011]. Burch teaches a username tied to the particulars of the purchasor [0100].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McClure’s disclosure to include links between raffle record and the purchasor record as taught by Burch because the system can automatically complete and facilitate the process of choosing one or more winning tickets corresponding to sales of a particular raffle, and closing fulfillment or paying out in the raffle - Burch [0024].
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 7 and 8, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Dutt et al: “SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF REAL-TIME PROCESSING”, (US Pub. No. 20200334678 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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 J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights