Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/063,079

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PAYMENT DEVICE ISSUANCE, LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT, AND USE

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Examiner
RAZA, ZEHRA
Art Unit
3697
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 0m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
79 granted / 181 resolved
-8.4% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+49.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 0m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
214
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 181 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
DETAILED ACTION The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Application filed on February 25, 2025 for application 19063079 Acknowledgements Claims 4-20 have been canceled Claims 1-3 and 16-21 have been rejected and examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 1-3 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a method, claims 16-18 are directed to a system and claims 19-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. The claims recite issuing and replacing account credentials which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “issuing a first financial instrument to a customer, wherein the first financial instrument is a numberless physical financial instrument having a first primary account number, the first primary account number stored on the first financial instrument, wherein the first financial instrument is restricted to in-person transactions; issuing a second financial instrument to a wallet for the customer …, wherein the second financial instrument has a second primary account number that is different from the first primary account number; receiving a notification that the first financial instrument or the second financial instrument has been lost or compromised; in response to the first financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, the first financial instrument with a third primary account number, wherein the second primary account number for the second financial instrument is unchanged; and in response to the second financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, the second financial instrument with a fourth primary account number, wherein the first primary account number for the first financial instrument is unchanged.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices” classified under “mitigating risk” (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for creating or issuing a plurality of accounts with an customer identifier and reissuing or replacing accounts in response to an account being either compromised or lost. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(d)). [The use of a payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet perform the steps or functions of “issuing a first financial instrument to a customer, wherein the first financial instrument is a numberless physical financial instrument having a first primary account number, the first primary account number stored on the first financial instrument, wherein the first financial instrument is restricted to in-person transactions; issuing a second financial instrument to a wallet for the customer …, wherein the second financial instrument has a second primary account number that is different from the first primary account number; receiving a notification that the first financial instrument or the second financial instrument has been lost or compromised; in response to the first financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, the first financial instrument with a third primary account number, wherein the second primary account number for the second financial instrument is unchanged; and in response to the second financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, the second financial instrument with a fourth primary account number, wherein the first primary account number for the first financial instrument is unchanged.”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of a payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of issuing and replacing account credentials. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet performs the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of issuing and replacing account credentials. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a payment device or a customer electronic device, a financial institution electronic device, a chip on the first financial instrument and an electronic wallet to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims describe receiving a PIN, assigning the personal identification number to both the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument and receiving and assigning, by the financial institution computer program, a changed personal identification number for one of the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument further describing the abstract idea of issuing and replacing account credentials. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also 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 1-3 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harkey et al. (US 2015/0254646 A1) in view of RULE et al. (US 2020/0184462 A1) Regarding Claims 1, 16 and 19, Harkey discloses a method for payment device issuance, lifecycle management, and use, comprising: issuing, by a financial institution computer program for a financial institution, a first financial instrument to a customer, wherein the first financial instrument is a numberless physical financial instrument having a first primary account number, the first primary account number stored in a chip on the first financial instrument, wherein the first financial instrument is restricted to in-person transactions (¶0059, ¶0060, ¶0071) issuing, by the financial institution computer program, a second financial instrument to an electronic wallet for the customer as a digital financial instrument, wherein the second financial instrument has a second primary account number that is different from the first primary account number (¶0028, ¶0031) receiving, by the financial institution computer program, a notification that the first financial instrument or the second financial instrument has been lost or compromised (¶0061-¶0064) in response to the first financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, by the financial institution computer program, the first financial instrument with a third primary account number, wherein the second primary account number for the second financial instrument is unchanged; and (¶0057, ¶0068, ¶0070-¶0073) Harkey does not disclose: in response to the second financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, by the financial institution computer program, the second financial instrument with a fourth primary account number, wherein the first primary account number for the first financial instrument is unchanged. RULE however discloses: in response to the second financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, by the financial institution computer program, the second financial instrument with a fourth primary account number, wherein the first primary account number for the first financial instrument is unchanged (¶0032-¶0034, ¶0045 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Harkey to include “in response to the second financial instrument being lost or compromised, reissuing, by the financial institution computer program, the second financial instrument with a fourth primary account number, wherein the first primary account number for the first financial instrument is unchanged”, as disclosed in RULE, in order to provide a system for reissuing or otherwise altering information stored on contactless cards (see RULE ¶0002). Regarding Claims 2, 17 and 20, Harker discloses receiving, by the financial institution computer program, a personal identification number for the first financial instrument or the second financial instrument; (¶0028, ¶0031, ¶0093) assigning, by the financial institution computer program, the personal identification number to both the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument; (¶0028, ¶0031) receiving, by the financial institution computer program, a changed personal identification number for one of the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument; and (¶0031) assigning, by the financial institution computer program, the changed personal identification number to both the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument (¶0028, ¶0031) Regarding Claims 3, 18 and 21, the combination of Harkey and RULE discloses the invention as above. RULE further discloses wherein the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument are associated with a logical financial instrument identifier (¶0034) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Harkey to include “wherein the first financial instrument and the second financial instrument are associated with a logical financial instrument identifier”, as disclosed in RULE, in order to provide a system for reissuing or otherwise altering information stored on contactless cards (see RULE ¶0002). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM. 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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. /ZEHRA RAZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3697 /JOHN W HAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 25, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579541
Efficient Creation of Non-Fungible Tokens
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567045
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERSONALIZED TELLER SERVICES USING ENCRYPTION BASED SHARED ARCHITECTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12524575
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING DIGITAL CONTENT FORGERY USING WEB ASSEMBLY-BASED BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12469045
BLOCKCHAIN-BASED CONVERSATION MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12443957
Payment Systems and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+49.8%)
5y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 181 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month