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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025, 03/20/2025, 06/26/2025 and 09/12/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection prepared in response to U.S. Patent Application 19/020,648 filed on
January 14, 2025.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “configuring a template set for the object, wherein the template set is independent of the first path and wherein configuring comprises selecting an indicator from the template set for processing along with the first path;” which is ambiguous. The claim recites the template set as being “independent” of the first path while also reciting the template set as part of a processing operation along with the first path.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected as per their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 are directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method of engaging in a secured transaction of an object through processing of a non-fungible token in a transfer redeemable voucher system comprising:
implementing a first path of a transferable redeemable voucher process associated with the object;
configuring a template set for the object, wherein the template set is independent of the first path and wherein configuring comprises selecting an indicator from the template set for processing along with the first path; and
authenticating the secured transaction upon alignment of the first path and the processed indicator from the template set in order to proceed with the secured transaction.
Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for securely transferring or redeeming an object based on a set template associated with the object. The claim achieves this by executing a first path of a transfer redeemable voucher process for an object, configuring an independent template set for the object by selecting a template indicator, and authenticating the transaction upon match of the first path and the template set indicator. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., fundamental economic practices).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Here, the additional element of a transfer redeemable voucher system merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “non-fungible” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that being of non-fungible tokens (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, there are no additional elements utilize to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-6 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 2-6 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the template set may be chosen from one or more of: a family configured for: an object of sale itself and can be marked; an object of sale itself and cannot be marked; a separate object related to a party of the sale of the object; or a combination thereof.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the family configured for the object of sale itself and can be marked comprises one or more of: marking an object with an unobservable mark; and marking an object with a non tamperable mark.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the family configured for the object of sale itself and cannot be marked comprises one or more of: a nondestructive physical test result; and a unique physical factor subject of an independent verification methodology.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the family configured for the separate object related to a party of the sale of the object comprises a physical good associated with the authentic owner that has been adapted to interact with the transfer redeemable voucher.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the physical good associated with the authentic owner has been subject to configuration of a template.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass (US 20240386413 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Glass discloses:
implementing a first path of a transferable redeemable voucher process associated with the object; (Glass ¶0084, First user interface 400a may be displayed to gifting user 206 as a first page when the gifting user 206 goes through the flow of ordering and customizing a gift card 300 in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. Glass ¶0085, In some embodiments, first user interface 400a is operable to receive various information about recipient user 208 of the gift card 300. As shown, first user interface 400a may display a plurality of input fields 402 operable to accept user input from the gifting user 206… Generally, any information about the recipient user 208 may be received in first user interface 400a. For example, known likes and/or dislikes of the recipient user 208 may be received and used by gift card engine 202 to suggest merchants and/or filter merchants from being presented to gifting user 206.)
configuring a template set for the object, wherein the template set is independent of the first path and wherein configuring comprises selecting an indicator from the template set for processing along with the first path; and (Glass ¶0060, In some embodiments, gift card engine 202 provides one or more templates 216 to be selected by gifting user 206 that define a layout of the gift card (see FIG. 3). Templates 216 may be pre-defined, user configurable, or both. Thus, gifting user 206 may customize the display of the gift card. For example, different templates 216 may have different layouts of various user interface elements thereon. As another example, a first template 216 may display two images of the merchant retrieved from search service 212, while a second template 216 may display no imagery of the merchant and instead may include a link to the merchant's website and a link to obtain directions to the merchant. Accordingly, gifting user 206 may edit template 216 to achieve a desired layout, appearance, and the like. In some embodiments, template 216 is dynamic such that the display of the gift card may change over time, e.g., as more information about the merchant is received by gift card engine 202. Glass ¶0067, In some embodiments, a tokenized transaction is executed between gift card engine 202 and recipient user 208. For example, the acceptance of the gift card may be carried out via a tokenized transaction between recipient user 208 and gift card engine 202. Once gift card engine 202 validates the tokenized transaction, the template 216 for rendering the gift card may be retrieved from financial institutions module 220 and/or determined based on the card issuer. For example, different card issuers may require gift cards to be rendered according to different templates. Thereafter, gift card engine 202 may render the customized gift card based on the template 216 and the merchant-specific data. Glass ¶0079, As shown, gift card 300 may comprise various user interface elements configured to display various data (e.g., imagery, text data, video data, etc.). The user interface elements may be rendered on gift card 300 based on a template 216 as previously discussed. In some embodiments, the gifting user 206 can create a custom template 216 and/or customize a pre-existing template 216. In some embodiments, the template 216 is provided by the card issuer.)
Glass does not disclose:
authenticating the secured transaction upon alignment of the first path and the processed indicator from the template set in order to proceed with the secured transaction.
However, Glass teaches:
Glass discloses that upon completion of an order for a gift card a financial institution pre approves the card and upon acceptance of the gift card by the recipient user, a tokenization transaction is initiated to validate the transaction prior to issuance. (¶0065, ¶0120)
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art to apply an authentication technique similar to the one disclosed by Glass in order to authenticate the secured transaction upon alignment of the first path and the processed indicator from the template set.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “…authenticating the secured transaction upon alignment of the first path and the processed indicator from the template set in order to proceed with the secured transaction.” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “for…” in “wherein configuring comprises selecting an indicator from the template set for processing along with the first path” and “in order to…” in “authenticating the secured transaction upon alignment of the first path and the processed indicator from the template set in order to proceed with the secured transaction.” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 2, Glass further discloses:
the template set may be chosen from one or more of: a family configured for: an object of sale itself and can be marked; an object of sale itself and cannot be marked; a separate object related to a party of the sale of the object; or a combination thereof. (Glass ¶0063, As discussed further below, via GUI 204, gifting user 206 may input various parameters for dynamically creating a gift card to gift to recipient user 208. In some embodiments, the parameters comprise information about recipient user 208 and the selected merchant or merchant categories. Glass ¶0059, Once the gifting user 206 selects a specific merchant (or merchant category), gift card engine 202 may retrieve data specific to the merchant, which may be used to populate the gift card. Glass ¶0061, In some embodiments, gifting user 206 may select the image for the merchant and/or merchant category to be displayed. Glass ¶0089, In some embodiments, second user interface 400b comprises suggested merchants and/or merchant categories that the gifting user 206 may select from for gift card 300. The suggested merchants/merchant categories may be determined based, in part, on recipient user 208 as previously discussed. Glass ¶0090, In some embodiments, second user interface 400b comprises merchant categories 404. For example, merchant categories 404 may comprise a Food/Drink category, an Entertainment category, a Recreation category, a Relaxation category, or the like. In some embodiments, merchant categories 404 correspond to an MCC category. Each of merchant categories 404 may be presented as a drop-down list, which may present subcategories 406 when selected. For example, as shown, gifting user 206 has selected the food/drink category, and the subcategories 406 include Mexican, Chinese, bars/breweries, and dessert. One of the subcategories 406 may be selected to present further nested subcategories. For example, the dessert subcategory has been selected, which can further be narrowed to ice cream and cookies subcategories. In some embodiments, once a final subcategory has been selected, second user interface 400b presents suggested merchants 408 associated with the subcategory. As shown, the suggested merchants 408 comprise Chicago-based ice cream stores based on the category and subcategories selected by the gifting user 206 and the location provided in location input field 402. In some embodiments, gifting user 206 can select a merchant from the list in second user interface 400b at which the gift card 300 may be used. In some embodiments, gifting user 206 selects a merchant category (e.g., dessert) from second user interface 400b, and gift card engine 202 obtains a gift card 300 with a MCC corresponding to the selected category.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “for…” in “a family configured for” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “the template set may be chosen from one or more of: a family” recites a possible step rather than a positively recited step, which means that the claim limitation is not required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Wemmel (US 6409218 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Glass does not disclose, however Wemmel teaches:
the family configured for the object of sale itself and can be marked comprises one or more of: (Wemmel col 1 lines 13-20, Various types of equipment, such as industrial and production equipment, tools, electrical equipment, office machines and communication equipment, are increasingly being individually marked by owners to permit identification of the equipment among discovered stolen goods. Such markings are divided into two categories: i.e., (1) visually non-observable markings and (2) visually observable markings.)
marking an object with an unobservable mark; and (Wemmel col 1 lines 20-25, For the first category of marking, UV pens are customarily used, making it possible to apply an individual marking with a very difficult to remove, visually non-observable UV ink, for example by writing the owner's name on the object. Such UV markers are commercially available as security pens.)
marking an object with a non tamperable mark. (Wemmel col 1 lines 26-28, For the second category, a label is applied to the object or the object itself is permanently labeled, for example by an engraving device or soldering iron.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to have modify Glass with Wemmel’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enable physical verification of the object and improve the reliability and security of the transaction.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “for…” in “the family configured for” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Furthermore, the description of what “the object of sale itself and can be marked” comprises is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as the term "comprises" is open-ended expression.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Voloshynovskil (WO 2009115611 A2).
Regarding claim 4, Glass does not disclose, however Voloshynovskiy teaches:
the family configured for the object of sale itself and cannot be marked comprises one or more of: a nondestructive physical test result; and a unique physical factor subject of an independent verification methodology. (Voloshynovskiy Page 5 ¶5, The possibility of identification and authentication of products, documents, objects and articles by analyzing difficult-to-duplicate, heterogeneous/inhomogeneous or "random" microstructure associated to the genuine item has been investigated in various contexts. The microstructures have a random character and are unique for all items. The random pattern of microstructure is highly determined by the physical properties of materials (paper, metal, plastic, etc.) and the method of data acquisition. The methods of acquisition should be considered in the broad sense and include optical, acoustic, mechanical, electro-magnetic and other principles. Voloshynovskiy Page 11 ¶2, The invention described in the current document is a method and apparatus for secure and reliable identification and authentication of products, items, objects and packaging using unique unclonable microstructure features created by either nature or humans.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to have modify Glass with Voloshynovskiy’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enable physical verification of objects that cannot be mark and improve the reliability and security of the transaction.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “for…” in “the family configured for” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Furthermore, the description of what “the object of sale itself and cannot be marked” comprises is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as the term "comprises" is open-ended expression.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Arora (US 20190130387 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Glass does not disclose, however Arora teaches:
the family configured for the separate object related to a party of the sale of the object comprises a physical good associated with the authentic owner that has been adapted to interact with the transfer redeemable voucher. (Arora ¶0020, Prior to a gift card being made eligible for purchase, the gift card may be registered with a blockchain network 108 associated with the processing server 102. Arora ¶0021, The first blockchain address may be an address associated with the retailer 104 as the current owner of the gift card, also referred to herein as a “first recipient address,” as the retailer 104 may be considered an initial recipient, receiving the gift card to make it available for sale. Arora ¶0031, To redeem the gift card, the recipient 116 may go to the merchant 106 (e.g., physically or virtually, such as via an e-commerce transaction conducted using the Internet) and initiate a transaction. As part of the initiation of the transaction, the recipient 116 may provide the merchant 106 with the gift card number, the device identifier associated with the recipient computing device 118, and a digital signature generated by the private key provisioned to the recipient computing device 118. The merchant 106 may electronically transmit the data to the processing server 102. The processing server 102 may then identify the latest data value added to the blockchain for the gift card (e.g., identified via the gift card number) and verify the third blockchain address via the digital signature and verify that the device identifier stored in the data value is equivalent to the device identifier submitted by the merchant 106 (e.g., and as supplied by the recipient 116). The processing server 102 may provide a result of the verification back to the merchant 106. The merchant 106 may then proceed with the transaction accordingly, such as by allowing redemption of the gift card if the verification was a success, and preventing redemption if the verification failed. Arora ¶0052, In step 402, the gifter 112 may submit a transfer request for transfer of a purchased gift card (e.g., purchased via the process illustrated in FIG. 3 and discussed above) via the gifter computing device 114 to the processing server 102. In step 404, the receiving device 202 of the processing server 102 may receive the transfer request. The transfer request may include at least a device identifier associated with the recipient computing device 118 associated with the intended recipient 116 of the gift card, the gift card number, and a digital signature generated by the gifter computing device 114 (e.g., using the private key provisioned in step 320 of FIG. 3). In step 406, the verification module 216 of the processing server 102 may verify that the gifter computing device 114 has ownership of the gift card, by verifying the blockchain address included in the latest data value for the gift card (e.g., identified via the querying module 214 of the processing server 102 based on the gift card number) using the digital signature included in the transfer request. In some embodiments, the transfer request may further include the device identifier associated with the gifter computing device 114, which may also be verified against the device identifier included in the latest data value for the gift card. )
While Arora doesn’t explicitly state that the gift card is a physical gift card, Arora in ¶0003 states that “a fraudster may steal the physical gift card from the gifter after purchase, which may then be used as there is no protection on usage or transfer of the gift card, unlike with traditional payment cards.”, therefore implying that the gift cards can be a physical gift card.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to have modify Glass with Arora’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve transaction security and prevent fraudulent transactions by maintaining an electronic record of all the transactions related to the physical object.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “for…” in “the family configured for” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Furthermore, the description of what “the separate object related to a party of the sale of the object” comprises is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as the term "comprises" is open-ended expression.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Glass and Arora further discloses:
the physical good associated with the authentic owner has been subject to configuration of a template (Glass ¶0049, A gifting user may interface with a graphical user interface (GUI) to customize the gift card. The parameters (including a monetary value) may be sent to a gift card engine configured to obtain the gift card. The gift card engine may be embedded within a separate application, website, or the like, such as a merchant review social media application. Glass ¶0070, In some embodiments, gift card engine 202 is configured to obtain a physical gift card. For example, gift card engine 202 may instruct financial institutions module 220 to produce a physical gift card based on the layout of gift card 300 selected by gifting user 206 and send the physical gift card to a specified location (e.g., to the gifting user 206 or recipient user 208). In some embodiments, exemplary gift card 300 is presented to recipient user 208 in a printable format which may be printed and then redeemed by recipient user 208. Glass ¶0080, In some embodiments, exemplary gift card 300 comprises a merchant region 302. The merchant region 302 may display information about the selected merchant (or merchant category) for the gift card 300. For example, as illustrated, merchant region 302 displays the merchant's name (Chicago Custard), images of the merchant (the ice cream cones), and a rating of the merchant. The information displayed in merchant region 302 may be retrieved from search service 212, as previously discussed. Other information that may be included in merchant region 302 includes a menu (or link thereto), a link to a website of the merchant, a link to a third-party reservation system to make a reservation at the merchant, a link to obtain directions to the merchant (e.g., a link that opens a map application on the smartphone of recipient user 208 with the directions), a link to social media profiles of the merchant, and the like. In some embodiments, the information in merchant region 302 is dynamic and may change over time. For example, merchant region 302 may display the latest image posted by the merchant on an image hosting site (e.g., INSTAGRAM) that updates when the merchant adds a new post. While displayed in a single region, it will be appreciated that the information for the merchant can be displayed in any region(s) of exemplary gift card 300.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 20130337213 A1 to Smithson discloses: A process to mark a multilayered article having a release layer and an adhesive layer, using a laser to produce markings within more than one layer of the article. The process includes providing a multilayered article including a laser-markable release liner having a release layer, and a laser-markable adhesive film; and marking the laser-markable release liner and the laser-markable adhesive film by directing laser radiation from at least a first source of laser radiation into the multilayered article through at least the first release layer to induce an interaction between a first light-sensitive pigment and a first organic polymer in the laser-markable release liner, and a second light-sensitive pigment and a second organic polymer in the laser-markable adhesive film, to form at least one visually perceptible marking in each of the laser-markable release liner and the laser-markable adhesive film. The release layer is substantially transparent to the laser radiation. Multilayered articles having multi-layer laser markings are also disclosed.
US 20140344035 A1 to Hewett discloses: Embodiments are directed towards recommending coupon templates to a customer, from which the customer can select and have published to consumers. A ranked order may be determined for the coupon templates for each of a plurality of categories. A subset of the coupon templates may be recommended and provided to a customer. The subset of coupon templates may be determined based on a category of the customer, the ranked order of the plurality of coupon templates for the category, external variables, or the like, or any combination thereof. One or more of the subset of coupon templates may be selected by the customer and published to the consumers. The ranked order of the plurality of coupon templates may be determined and/or modified based on monitored actions associated with previously published coupons, such as by employing a success of similar attributes associated with previously published coupons.
US 20160267479 A1 to Chung discloses: An operation and management system for transaction certificates comprises at least a transaction confirmation device, at least a relay setting device and a back-end management platform, wherein the relay setting device is connected between the transaction confirmation device and the back-end management platform. The relay setting device may set up the category of the transaction certificate to be issued in accordance with the type of the transaction confirmation device, generate data for the transaction certificate to be issued through the transaction confirmation device, and issue the intended transaction certificate. In addition, the back-end management platform may design the templates for different categories of transaction certificates, and regularly and automatically update the transaction certificate templates in the relay setting device. Therefore, no matter what type of the transaction confirmation device may be, it is possible to issue the transaction certificate on a variety of demands simply by operating conjunctively with the relay setting device and the back-end management platform.
US 20130297431 A1 to Deubell discloses: A method of generating a gift card comprising: (a) receiving indicia corresponding to at least one of a product indicia representative of a particular product and a service indicia representative of a particular service; (b) making a gift card graphic available to the processing device that matches at least one of the product indicia and the service indicia; (c) merging the gift card graphics with a gift card template to create a virtual gift card; (d) recording the virtual gift card with a memory accessible by a kiosk that includes a gift card printer; and, (e) generating a receipt uniquely corresponding to at least one of the virtual gift card and a tangible gift card.
US 20080103627 A1 to Torian discloses: A customizable gift card that may be designed using a plurality of design templates that have modifiable fields and layouts. The gift cards may be designated for use at one or more stores based on contract arrangements between the one or more stores and a vendor of the gift card. The gift card may be adapted to be used exclusively at the one or more designated stores. A point of sale terminal such as a kiosk may be used to reduce shelf space and provide a greater variety of gift card design options to a customer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698