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 .
This application has PRO 63/666,876 07/02/2024
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected for the following informality – “A universal credit card system and method of use” should be changed to “A method of implementing a universal credit card”. The preamble of claim 1 mixes system claim and method claim together, and the body of the claim is written as a method claim. Moreover, dependent claims 2-5 are method claims, so claim 1 should be clarified as a method claim.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards implementing a universal credit card by forming a partnership with a conglomerate of entities in varying industries. The concept is clearly related to managing relationship between different human entities, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, do not require any computer device. Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-5 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-5 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards implementing a universal credit card by forming a partnership with a conglomerate of entities in varying industries and delivering incentives by consumer used of the universal credit card. The concept is clearly related to managing relationship between different human entities, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claim limitations do not require any computer to implement, as they are strictly directed to business arrangement between entities. Accordingly, the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
The present claims do not recite any additional element, nor solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, the present claims do not recite any additional element. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer. Even if the limitations are performed by computer, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rifai et al. (Pub. No.: US 2025/0342497), in view of Saha et al. (WO 2019/106690 A2).
As per claim 1, Rifai teaches a universal credit card system and method of use, comprising:
forming a partnership to create a universal credit card between a conglomerate of entities in varying industries, not exclusively or majoritively owned by a bank or other financial institution, for the benefit of a group of consumers or a specific demographic (see paragraph 0045, “The platform can turn any bank card or credit card into a virtually co-branded card with any number of loyalty partners linked to the card…a bank or another type of card issuer can change any of its regular cards into a co-branded card with one or more of its loyalty partners using the software of the platform…a legacy card becomes a multi-brand card or even a dynamic multi-branded card”, loyalty partners are the same as a conglomerate of entities in varying industries; see paragraph 0047, “the system for multi-branding can configure them to behave differently in that they become linked to many loyalty rewards program partners”; see paragraph 0117, “With respect to contracts 1502, the software-based platform 142 can manage agreements between banks and partners or between non-bank partners”; also see paragraph 0119-0120, 140); and
implementing and executing the universal credit card through agreements between the conglomerate of entities to deliver: (a) incentives produced by consumer use of the universal credit card (see paragraph 0057, “the cardholder 112 can spend money by using the card 120, at spend operation 101, and other points earned from such spending can be provided directly or via the software-based platform 142 from loyalty rewards program entities (e.g., see partners 114, 114a, and 114b)…configure the way in which cardholders earn points from the one or more loyalty partners”; see paragraph 0065, “necessary records are stored in the database to keep track of the partnership…The ability to earn points with the approved partners will be made available to the customers (e.g., cardholders of credit cards) at this point”; also see paragraph 0124 and 0145 for earning loyalty points from spending with the card; see paragraph 0003 for redeeming incentives/loyalty points).
Examiner notes Rifai does not explicitly teach a universal credit card that provides a means to manage all expenses, utilities, IDs, and insurances on a single universal credit card.
Saha teaches a universal credit card that provides a means to manage all expenses, utilities, IDs, and insurances on a single universal credit card (see paragraph 0002, “Smartcards can be used to store information related to multiple electronic cards (for example, bank cards, department store cards, club membership cards, rebate cards, medical/insurance cards, a driving license, royalty cards, identity cards, access cards, National ID cards, E-passports, Boarding pass, Smart Aadhaar cards and so on)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Rifai with teaching from Saha to include a universal credit card that provides a means to manage all expenses, utilities, IDs, and insurances on a single universal credit card. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. providing a smart universal cards) to a known method (i.e., implementing a multi partners co-branding credit card) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., replace multiple physical cards with one smart card for convenience).
As per claim 2, Rifai teaches wherein the partnership and agreements are negotiated between the conglomerate of entities (see paragraph 0059, 0095, and 0117).
As per claim 3, Rifai teaches wherein the agreements contain a list of membership parameters (see paragraph 0059, “Most point exchanges happen bilaterally, according to an agreed-upon exchange rate between partners. For example, Partner A and Partner B would agree that x Partner A points are equivalent to Partner B points; the conversion rates between partners in the agreement are membership parameters).
As per claim 4, Rifai teaches wherein the agreements contain the incentives and all expenses, utilities, IDs, and insurances capable of being managed on the single universal credit card (see paragraph 0059, 0095, and 0117).
As per claim 5, Rifai teaches wherein the incentives may take any form as determined by the partnership and agreements between the conglomerate of entities (see paragraph 0059, 0095, and 0117).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
FEB-2026