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 the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/3/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 2-21 are pending in the application.
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 2-21 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.
Claim 2 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 2 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: determining, an authorized transaction amount for a transaction that is associated with a customer identifier (ID) of a customer and a merchant ID of a merchant; obtaining, a plurality of gift accounts associated with the customer ID; redeeming, the plurality of gift accounts associated with the customer ID in a reverse chronological order for at least a portion of the authorized transaction amount, wherein the reverse chronological order is based on a respective expiration date associated with each of the plurality of gift accounts; removing, one or more of the plurality of gift accounts from being associated with the customer ID, in response to fully redeeming one or more of the plurality of gift accounts; paying, from a digital wallet using a digital wallet payment process, any remaining balance of the authorized transaction amount not paid from the redeeming the plurality of gift accounts associated with the customer ID; and applying, using a loyalty cashback process, a credit amount to a digital wallet balance associated with the customer ID, wherein the credit amount is based on the authorized transaction amount; designating the customer ID as a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the customer ID among a plurality of customer IDs; wherein the key field partitions the database of gift accounts according to the high-level class of objects defined by the key field of a plurality of key fields; merging the plurality of related data tables based on types of the plurality of the customer IDs in the plurality of key fields; sorting and in the merged plurality of related data, the plurality of the customer IDs, according to a known order to simplify a lookup process. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “for mobile and automated exchange and management of gift cards”, “may determine an available gift card account balance of the customer associated with the merchant in response to determining the authorized transaction is associated with both the customer and the merchant”, “to redeem the available gift card account balance of the customer associated with the merchant”, “may execute a loyalty cashback process to apply a credit, based on the transaction amount, to a digital wallet balance associated with the customer”, “may proceed to a balance check and redemption process in response to returning the record associated with at least one of the merchant ID or the merchant name from the authorization message”, “may order the plurality of gift cards associated with the customer in reverse chronological order. Claim 2 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining, an authorized transaction amount for a transaction that is associated with a customer identifier (ID) of a customer and a merchant ID of a merchant; redeeming, the plurality of gift accounts associated with the customer ID in a reverse chronological order for at least a portion of the authorized transaction amount, wherein the reverse chronological order is based on a respective expiration date associated with each of the plurality of gift accounts; removing, one or more of the plurality of gift accounts from being associated with the customer ID, in response to fully redeeming one or more of the plurality of gift accounts; designating the customer ID as a key field in a plurality of related data tables to speed searching for the customer ID among a plurality of customer IDs; wherein the key field partitions the database of gift accounts according to the high-level class of objects defined by the key field of a plurality of key fields; merging the plurality of related data tables based on types of the plurality of the customer IDs in the plurality of key fields; sorting and in the merged plurality of related data, the plurality of the customer IDs, according to a known order to simplify a lookup process. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 2 includes the additional elements of processors / a database, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 2 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 20, 21 are directed to a system and computer readable storage medium, respectively, for performing the method of claim 2; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 2. Claims 20, 21 perform the method of claim 2 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 20, 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 2.
Remaining dependent claims 3-19 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claim 2. The claims further recite the additional elements of databases / placing frequently used files on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks. The databases represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Placing frequently used files on separate file systems does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art: The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is Lin (20100082485). It teaches initiating a contactless payment at a merchant via a mobile app, receiving an authorization message based on the contactless payment, executing an authorization process in response to receiving the message to determine an authorized transaction, validating the transaction to determine whether the transaction is associated with a customer, determine if the transaction is associated with the merchant, determining an available gift card account balance of the customer associated with the merchant in response to determining the transaction is associated with both the customer and merchant, and redeeming the available gift card account balance of the customer. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. The second most relevant prior art identified is Jaglekar (20160350789); it describes loyalty integration for merchant specific digital wallets, including connecting a merchant app associated with a merchant with a funding source associated with a financial institution, wherein the app provides a merchant program to the user; identifying a number of points for conversion to stored value on the app; converting the points to a stored value amount on the app; loading the app with the stored value; and responsive to a user request on the app, performing a payment transaction for a purchase using the converted stored value. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant amends the independent claims to include functions that cannot be reasonably performed in the human mind and are inextricably tied to computer functionality. In particular, the claimed invention includes designating the customer ID as a key field in related data tables in a database. This task includes the use of key fields, data tables and databases, and the task improves computer functionality by speeding up searching for the customer ID. The claimed invention also uses the key field to partition the database of gift accounts according to the high-level class of objects defined by the key field. The claimed invention then merges the plurality of related data tables based on types of the customer IDs in the key fields. The claimed invention further sorts the customer IDs in the merged related data tables according to a known order to simplify a lookup process. As such, Applicant further amends the independent claims to include steps that improve the computer processes, namely increasing the speed of accessing data from a database in internal storage. The ability to more quickly access data is important to the claimed invention in that the specification discloses that many of the steps use a key field. For example, as stated in paragraph 0054 (emphasis added), "In response to the topup request message, the system may validate the message against a database of existing customers via a key field search based on the PPAN (step 814)." As stated in paragraph 0060 (emphasis added), " The platform 200 may strip the PPAN from the authorization message and perform a key field search based on the a database 1102 comprising customer data associated with PPANs (step 1104)." As stated in paragraph 0061 (emphasis added), "The platform 200 may strip the merchant ID from the authorization message and perform a key field search based on the merchant ID of a database 1202 comprising merchant data associated with merchant ID and with a merchant name (step 1204)" and "Where no record is returned, the platform 200 may strip the merchant name from authorization message and perform a key field search based on the merchant name of the database 1202 (step 1206)." As stated in paragraph 0062 (emphasis added), "The platform 200 may strip the merchant ID and the one or more product IDs from the authorization message and perform a key field search based on the merchant ID and the one or more product IDs of a database 1252 comprising merchant data associated with merchant ID and with a merchant name and product data associated with product ID (step 1254)";"In various embodiments, the merchant ID may be included in the record. In various embodiments, the platform 200 may perform a key field search based on the merchant ID of the database 1202" and "In various embodiments, the platform 200 may perform a key field search based on the merchant name of the database 1252." Moreover, as stated in paragraphs 0112-0113 (emphasis added): [00112] . .. Automatic association techniques may include, for example, a database search, a database merge, GREP, AGREP, SQL, using a key field in the tables to speed searches, sequential searches through all the tables and files, sorting records in the file according to a known order to simplify lookup, and/or the like. The association step may be accomplished by a database merge function, for example, using a "key field" in pre-selected databases or data sectors. Various database tuning steps are contemplated to optimize database performance. For example, frequently used files such as indexes may be placed on separate file systems to reduce In/Out ("I/O") bottlenecks. [00113] More particularly, a "key field" partitions the database according to the high- level class of objects defined by the key field. For example, certain types of data may be designated as a key field in a plurality of related data tables and the data tables may then be linked on the basis of the type of data in the key field. The data corresponding to the key field in each of the linked data tables is preferably the same or of the same type. However, data tables having similar, though not identical, data in the key fields may also be linked by using AGREP, for example. As such, Applicant asserts that the combination of at least the following elements provide eligible subject matter, as similarly recited by independent claims 2, 20 and 21: " designating, by the computer based system, the customer ID as a key field in a plurality of related data tables in a database of gift accounts, to speed searching for the customer ID and among a plurality of customer IDs, " wherein the key field partitions the database of gift accounts according to the high- level class of objects defined by the key field of a plurality of key fields; " merging, by the computer based system, the plurality of related data tables based on types of the plurality of the customer IDs in the plurality of key fields; and " sorting, by the computer based system and in the merged plurality of related data tables, the plurality of the customer IDs, according to a known order to simplify a lookup process. Dependent claims 3-19 variously depend from independent claim 2. Applicant asserts that dependent claims 3-19 are eligible for at least the reasons set forth above, in addition to their own eligible features. The claims of the present application are different from, and possibly broader than, the claims pursued in the parent or related applications. To the extent any amendments or characterizations of the scope of any claim or referenced art could be construed as a disclaimer of any subject matter supported by the present disclosure, Applicant rescinds and retracts such disclaimer. Accordingly, the references construed in the parent or related applications may need to be revisited. In view of the above remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims properly set forth that Applicant regards as its invention and are allowable over the cited references.
The pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “for mobile and automated exchange and management of gift cards”, “may determine an available gift card account balance of the customer associated with the merchant in response to determining the authorized transaction is associated with both the customer and the merchant”, “to redeem the available gift card account balance of the customer associated with the merchant”, “may execute a loyalty cashback process to apply a credit, based on the transaction amount, to a digital wallet balance associated with the customer”, “may proceed to a balance check and redemption process in response to returning the record associated with at least one of the merchant ID or the merchant name from the authorization message”, “may order the plurality of gift cards associated with the customer in reverse chronological order”. The pending claims do not, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the paras noted above by the Applicant that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
4/7/2026
Prosecution Insights