DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on January 3, 2025.
Currently, claims 1-9 are pending, and Claim 1is independent.
DIVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.78
This Application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/391,101 filed on 08/02/2021, appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from the claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desired to claim the benefit of the filing data of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 120, 37 CFR 1.78.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-9 are directed to computing devices (apparatus) comprising a processing element (processor) and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Step 1 is satisfied.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
The claims recite limitations of “receive transactional data for a plurality of credit card number, determine a plurality of old credit card number and a plurality of new credit card number, determine a first plurality of clusters of new credit card number including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number, serialize the transactional data for each old credit card number and each cluster of new credit card number is associated with the old credit card number, embed he serialized transactional data in a plurality of input vectors, input the input vectors for each old credit card number…, input the output vectors into a transformer decoder to generate predicted transactional activity, compare the predicted transactional activity for one old credit card number with actual transactional activity for each new credit card number…, determine a new credit card number that is the continuation of the old credit card number according to a difference between the predicted transactional activity of the old credit card number, applying a plurality of filters to the transactional data to reduce an amount of new credit card numbers that are associated with each old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card number that have a different issuer from the old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have transactions occurring in geolocations that are greater than a threshold distance from the geolocations of the transactions of the old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have a date of first transaction that is greater that a threshold time period, generating an input vector for each day of the month for each month of transaction data, determine a plurality of transaction differences, determine the new credit card number that is the continuation of the old credit card number as having the smallest transactional difference, determine a first group of old credit card number, determine a second plurality of clusters of new credit numbers…, convert the transaction data for each old credit card number in the first group and the cluster of new credit card number associated with each old credit card number into a plurality of snapshots with an image-like data format, train a modified Siamese network with a plurality of instances of snapshots associated with a combination of an old credit card number not in the first group of the second group…, use the modified Siamese network to determine one new credit card number that is an upgrade continuation match of one old credit card number for each old credit card number in the first group”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually perform the steps of: determining whether the new credit card numbers matched with one of the old credit card numbers, determining a first plurality of clusters of new credit card numbers including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number, and compare the predicted transactional activity for one old credit card number with actual transactional activity for each new credit card number in the cluster” in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory” and “train a modified Siamese network” do not take the claims out of the mental processes grouping because the recited “train a modified Siamese network” is merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to learning (training) per se, such an argument overlooks the entire education system. Reciting machine learning is placing such learning in a computer context, offering no technological implementation details beyond the conceptual idea to use a machine for learning. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element”. The Specification describes “The processing element 16 may include electronic hardware components such as microprocessor (single-core or multi-core), microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), alalonga and/or digital application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like” (see ¶ 23). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulation, and transmitting information over a network. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element”. The Specification describes “The processing element 16 may include electronic hardware components such as microprocessor (single-core or multi-core), microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), alalonga and/or digital application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like” (see ¶ 23). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulation, and transmitting information over a network, at best, may perform the step of receive transactional data. However, reciting a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-9 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 of this title, 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenner et al., (US 2003/0225742, hereinafter: Tenner), and in view of Bloy et al., (US 2020/0118155, hereinafter: Bloy), and further in view of Ebel et al., (US 2020/0184488, hereinafter: Ebel).
Regarding claim 1, Tenner discloses the a computing device for determining a new credit card number that is a continuation match with an old credit card number of a credit card account that has changed numbers, the computing device comprising:
a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element (see Fig. 1; ¶ 26, ¶ 51-52), the processing element programmed or configured to:
receive transactional data for a plurality of credit card numbers for a plurality of credit card customers (see Fig. 5A, Fig. 9A; ¶ 5-6, ¶ 11, ¶ 78-79),
determine a plurality of old credit card numbers and a plurality of new credit card numbers so that one of the new credit card numbers can be matched with a corresponding one of the old credit card number (see Abstract; ¶ 11, ¶ 13-14, ¶ 78),
compare the predicted transactional activity for one old credit card number with actual transactional activity for each new credit card number in the cluster associated with the old credit card number (see ¶ 11, ¶ 73, claim 3), and
determine a new credit card number that is the continuation of the old credit card number according to a difference between the predicted transactional activity of the old credit card number and the actual transactional activity of the new credit card numbers in the associated cluster for the old credit card number (see ¶ 8, ¶ 11-13, ¶ 90).
Tenner discloses the data records are maintained in tables comprise rows and column maintains information on a particular type of data records; each data record contains information relation to one client, last name, middle initial, first name, street, city, state, Zip code, and credit card numbers (see ¶ 8-9).
Tenner does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Bloy in an analogous art for managing financial products discloses
determine a first plurality of clusters of new credit card numbers including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number (see ¶ 72, ¶ 11, ¶ 18, ¶ 20-21, ¶ 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner to include teaching of Bloy in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Tenner discloses inserting the new mapping data record into the mapping table with a value of internal identifier (see ¶ 67).
Tenner and Bloy do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Ebel in an analogous art for risk evaluation discloses
serialize the transactional data for each old credit card number and each cluster of new credit card numbers that is associated with the old credit card numbers (see ¶ 18, ¶ 30, ¶ 48, ¶ 59, claim 3),
embed the serialized transactional data in a plurality of input vectors for each old credit card number (see ¶ 30, ¶ 56, claim 3),
input the input vectors for each old credit card number into a transformer encoder to generate a plurality of output vectors (see Fig. 5; ¶ 52-54),
input the output vectors into a transformer decoder to generate predicted transactional activity for each old credit card number(see Fig. 5; ¶ 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy to include teaching of Ebel in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focus solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrase “so that one of the new credit card numbers can be matched with a corresponding one of the old credit card number” is not given weight as it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. (Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Also, a (wherein/whereby) clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim ((Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission 26, USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 6, Tenner and Bloy do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ebel discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein embedding the serialized transactional data in input vectors includes a token embedding, a segment embedding, and a positional embedding for each input vector (see ¶ 18, ¶ 21-22, ¶ 35, ¶ 56, ¶ 59, claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy to include teaching of Ebel in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focus solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Tenner and Bloy do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ebel discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein embedding the serialized transactional data in input vectors includes generating an input vector for each day of the month for each month of transactional data that is serialized and embedded in the input vectors (see ¶ 22-23, ¶ 53, ¶ 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy to include teaching of Ebel in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focus solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Tenner does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Bloy discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the processing element is further programmed or configured to:
determine a plurality of transactional differences, each transactional difference being a difference between the predicted transactional activity of the old credit card number and the actual transactional activity of each new credit card number in the associated cluster (see ¶ 93, ¶ 143), and
determine the new credit card number that is the continuation of the old credit card number as having the smallest transactional difference (see ¶ 114, ¶ 123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner to include teaching of Bloy in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel as applied to claims 1 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Cheong et al., (US 7006993 B1, hereinafter: Cheong).
Regarding claim 2, Tenner, Bloy and Ebel do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cheong in an analogous art for electronic transaction management discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein determining the clusters of new credit card numbers includes applying a plurality of filters to the transactional data to reduce an amount of new credit card numbers that are associated with each old credit card number (see col. 22, lines 1-29, claim 11, claim 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel to include teaching of Cheong in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional viewpoint to promote better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As a courtesy note to the Applicant, the phrase “to reduce an amount of new credit card numbers that are associated with each old credit card number” is directed to intended use language and is not given patentable weight. If Applicant desires to given the functional phrase(s) a greater patentable weight, the Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant to positively recite the function in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Tenner, Bloy and Bloy do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cheong discloses the computing device of claim 2, wherein applying the filters includes, for each old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have a different issuer from the old credit card number (see col. 1, lines 41-53; col. 34, lines 4-32; claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel to include teaching of Cheong in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional viewpoint to promote better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Tenner, Bloy and Ebel do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cheong discloses the computing device of claim 2, wherein applying the filters includes, for each old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have transactions occurring in geolocations that are greater than a threshold distance from the geolocations of the transactions of the old credit card number (see col. 5, lines 12-20; col. 6, lines 31-62; col. 34, lines 4-32; claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel to include teaching of Cheong in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional viewpoint to promote better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Tenner, Bloy and Ebel do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cheong discloses the computing device of claim 2, wherein applying the filters includes, for each old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have a date of a first transaction that is greater than a threshold time period after a date of a last transaction of the old credit card number (see col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 34, lines 4-32; claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel to include teaching of Cheong in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional viewpoint to promote better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel as applied to claim 1 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Tao et al., (US 2018/0129934, hereinafter: Tao), and Noonan et al., (US 2008/0016244, hereinafter: Noonan).
Regarding claim 9, Tenner discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the processing element is further programmed or configured to:
determine a second plurality of clusters of new credit card numbers including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number in the second group (see ¶ 8, ¶ 11, ¶ 18, ¶ 20-21, ¶ 59).
Tenner does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Bloy discloses
determine, before the step of determining the first plurality of clusters of new credit card numbers, a first group of old credit card numbers that have likely been upgraded and a second group of old credit card numbers that have likely not been upgraded (see ¶ 20, ¶ 35, ¶ 39, ¶ 41),
a new credit card number that is an upgrade of the old credit card number, and a new credit card number that is not an upgrade of the old credit card number (see ¶ 4, ¶ 20, ¶ 24, ¶ 30, ¶ 35-39, ¶ 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner to include teaching of Bloy in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Tenner, Bloy and Ebel do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Tao in an analogous art for tracking object position discloses
train a modified siamese network with a plurality of instances of snapshots associated with a combination of an old credit card number not in the first group or the second group (see ¶ 7, ¶ 46, ¶ 68-70), a new credit card number that is an upgrade of the old credit card number, and a new credit card number that is not an upgrade of the old credit card number, and
use the modified siamese network to determine one new credit card number that is an upgrade continuation match of one old credit card number for each old credit card number in the first group (see Abstract; ¶ 9-13, ¶ 57, ¶ 88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy and Ebel to include teaching of Tao in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution using AI technology, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Tenner discloses an extract-transform-load process for converting/transforming data from original data source to the requirements of a corresponding data warehouse (see ¶ 15).
Tenner, Bloy, Ebel and Tao do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Noonan in an analogous art for displaying transaction message data disclose
convert the transactional data for each old credit card number in the first group and the cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number into a plurality of snapshots with an image-like data format (see Abstract; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tenner and in view of Bloy, Ebel and Tao to include teaching of Noonan in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more informative data format, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrase(s) “a new credit card number that is an upgrade of the old credit card number, and a new credit card number that is not an upgrade of the old credit card number” describes the characteristics of the credit card number is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Melik-Aslanian et al., (US 2010/0030677) discloses a method for fraud prevention and credit card replacement comprising a first main credit card and a second credit card for a spare. If any suspicious or fraudulent transaction is detected by the credit card provider, the main credit card is deactivated. If the transaction is authorized, the spare credit card is activated to be used as the main credit card.
McElroy et al., (US 2008/0270298) discloses a method for determining ways in which to alter interchange categories assigned to credit card transactions and the accompanying potential fee savings.
Bhatt et al., (US 2016/0275463) discloses a system for processing payment card transactions based on user profiles mapping from a payment card identifier to at least one credit card number.
Jang (KR 102191336 B1) discloses a method for generating customer ledger and credit point management using the credit card number used by the purchaser.
Singh et al., “Grammar Based off line generation of disposable credit card numbers”, College of Computer, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332, USA. ACM 1-58113-445, 2002.
Mahajan et al., “Siamese neural networks for the classification of high-dimensional radiomic features”, Department of Bioengineering, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX. HHS Public Access. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2020 February.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624