DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 7-9 and 11-26 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/26 and 5/24/26 filed after the mailing date of the Non-final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
In the office action dated 2/13/26, the examiner rejected claims 7-9 and 12-26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brandt (20050199714) in view of DeVault (20050027651). In response, the applicant substantially narrowed down the claim scope in the amendments dated 5/13/26. Specifically, the independent claims 7, 22, 26 now make clear that the limitations recites:
the system gets two text messages from user device,
first text message sets criteria and updates the logic for approved/denied transaction, AND
second text messages from user device updates the logic to deactivate payment vehicle for all transactions; and
second text message contains a predefined terms
This is in addition to the other disclosed elements for updating and implementing criteria for approval or denying transaction payment requests, previously disclosed and currently existing in the claim language. The examiner also notes that these specific elements and their particular utilities were discussed in the 5/13/26 Examiner Interview. The newly added elements – in combination with the other claim elements – overcome the prior art previously found and currently searched. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
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 7-9 and 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 7-9 and 11-26 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 22 and product claim 26. Claim 7 recites the limitations of updating and implementing criteria for approval or denying transaction payment requests based on user instruction.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving a 1st message; 1st message includes user instruction on criteria to deny transactions; updating logic for denying/approving transactions; receiving transaction payment request; determining if the transaction is to be approved or denied; if denying, then (a) denying the payment request, (b) transmitting 2nd text message to holder mobile device indicating that payment is denied, and (c) transmitting message to POS indicating that payment is denied; receiving an additional text message from the mobile computing device with a predefined term to deactivate the payment vehicle; and updating the logic to deactivated payment vehicle for all transactions in accordance the predefined term in the additional text message, – specifically, the claim recites: “
Receiving… a first text message… the first text message including a user-input instruction of the holder of the payment vehicle, the user-input instruction indicating that electronic transaction requests meeting one or more criteria are to be denied during processing by a computer-based payment network for the payment vehicle; updating… logic associated with the payment vehicle such that electronic transaction requests meeting the one or more criteria are automatically denied and electronic transaction requests not meeting the one or more criteria are approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the holder of the payment vehicle; receiving… a transaction request for a payment to a recipient using the payment vehicle; determining… that the transaction request for the payment to the recipient is to be denied for meeting the one or more criteria; in response to determining that the transaction request for the payment is to be denied: denying… the transaction request for the payment to the recipient, transmitting… a second text message to the mobile computing device indicating that the payment is denied, and transmitting… an electronic message to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction request for the payment is denied; receiving… an additional text message… with a predefined term that is configured to… deactivate the payment vehicle; and updating… the logic such that the payment vehicle is deactivated for all transactions in accordance with the predefined term in the additional text message, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The “a computing system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “a mobile computing device”, “a transaction engine”, and “a point-of-sale (POS) terminal”, in claim 22; and the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer-based payment network” in claim 26, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 7 and 26 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a computing system, one or more processors, a mobile computing device, a transaction engine, a computer-based payment network, and a point-of-sale (POS) terminal; and a storage unit such as memory and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 7, 22, and 26 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 7, 22, and 26 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 7, 22, and 26 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of approved transactions are settled by the issuer using a funding source linked to the payment vehicle, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of transmitting, by the computing system and to the mobile computing device, a confirmation text message that the logic has been updated, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing system” and “the mobile computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of “receiving, by the computing system, a second additional text message from the mobile computing device with a term "on" in the text message; and updating, by the transaction engine of the computing system, the logic such that the payment vehicle is enabled for all transactions subsequent to receiving the second additional text message”, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing system”, “the mobile computing device”, and “the transaction engine”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of the transaction engine resides in the computing system of the issuer of the payment vehicle, the computing system of the issuer being part of the computer-based payment network, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the transaction engine”, “the computing system”, and “of the computer-based payment network”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of the transaction request for the payment is received from the POS terminal, the transaction request having been generated by the POS terminal following presentation of the payment vehicle to the POS terminal, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the POS terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of denying the transaction request for the payment to the recipient comprises declining the transaction request such that the payment is not settled by the issuer, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of one or more criteria are indicative of transactions falling within a transaction amount range, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of the one or more criteria indicate that transactions conducted at one or more merchants are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of the one or more criteria define unauthorized transactions based on a type of goods, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of the one or more criteria indicate that transactions for internet purchases are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of the one or more criteria are indicative of a category of merchants at which transactions are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of the criteria indicate transactions in one or more countries are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 discloses the limitation of the first text message comprises a short message service (SMS) text message, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 discloses the limitation of the one or more criteria are based on at least one of a transaction amount, a merchant, a type of goods, or a country, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24 discloses the limitation of transmit, to the mobile computing device, a confirmation text message that the logic has been updated, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 discloses the limitation of the first text message comprises a short message service (SMS) text message, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 7-9 and 11-26 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… The claims do not recite a fundamental economic practice or method of organizing human activity. The amended claims recite, in varying formats, "receiving, by the computing system, an additional text message from the mobile computing device with a predefined term that is configured to instruct the computing system to deactivate the payment vehicle" and "updating, by the transaction engine of the computing system, the logic such that the payment vehicle is deactivated for all transactions in accordance with receiving the predefined term in the additional text message." Accordingly, the claims are directed to an improvement in the security of transaction systems, rather than any fundamental economic practice or method of organizing human activity,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has determined that the claims recite the abstract idea of updating and implementing criteria for approval or denying transaction payment requests based on user instruction. The additional recited technical elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The claims address technical problems in existing payment processing technology. The Specification explains that conventional "payment instrument[s] [are] always turned 'on' leading to abuse and fraud" and that "[c]urrently, a payment vehicle can be blocked if a credit or debit card, for example, is lost or stolen by calling a customer service representative of the card issuer after occurrence of the fraudulent event and requesting that the card be canceled or blocked after the occurrence"… The Specification explains how the claimed technology addresses these challenges. For example, the Specification explains that "[t]he 'on' and 'off' feature of the payment vehicle ... permits the holder of a payment vehicle to provide instructions as to whether to turn its payment vehicle 'on' when it is ready to be used and to be turned 'off' to prevent use when the holder of the payment vehicle so chooses",”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented (e.g., having the user’s input/text-messages to instruct the system to approve or deny transactions). It is not due to any technological improvement.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“significantly more… Such features cannot be considered well understood, routine, or conventional, and therefore the claims are patent-eligible because they recite significantly more than any purported abstract idea,”
the examiner respectfully notes that the office action did not raise the issue of whether anything is “well-understood, routine or conventional”. Rather, the examiner has determined that the claims’ technical elements amount to nothing more than “generic computers”, used in such a way that it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully refers the applicant to the discussion above on the abstract idea determination and the technical specific elements. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights