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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: API line 4 should be spelled out to – information program interface (API)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Priebatsch et al, US Pub. 2016/0371668.
Priebatsch et al disclose token-based cards and systems comprising: obtaining product identifying information (a first token identifying the card) and added value from a customer at a point of sale (a second activating token token) (see par. 0023); encrypting the product identifying information and added value (the payment gateway 320, par. 0057); transmitting the product identifying information and added value from the point of sale to the Fluid API (the management server serves as the API, Fig. 3); generating a passcode; transmitting the product identifying information, added value, and passcode to a central storage method for indexing (par. 0057); communicating the passcode to the customer; and requiring the customer to utilize the passcode to check the value of the gift card (par. 0068).
Regarding claim 2, wherein customer information is obtained at the point of sale from the customer (par. 0022).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the customer information is utilized in generating the passcode (par. 0057).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the passcode is communicated to the customer by transmitting the passcode to the point of sale and the passcode is provided to the customer on a receipt (par. 0022).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the passcode is communicated to the customer by transmitting the passcode to the point of sale and the passcode is provided to the customer digitally (par. 0022, including through a mobile App).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the passcode is communicated to the customer by sending the code via text to a provided phone number (par. 0079).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the passcode is communicated to the customer by altering the gift card at the point of sale to display the generated passcode (the passcode is transmitted to the merchant and can alter the gift card to display the passcode, par. 0022).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the passcode is generated by requesting a code from the customer and using that code as the passcode ( the code is associated with the user identification, it can be generated by requesting it, par. 0059+).
Regarding claim 9, further consisting of the step of: requiring the customer to utilize the passcode to redeem any value of the gift card ( par. 0073-78).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the central storage method is a database (see Fig. 2B/3A).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priebatsch et al in view of Yang et al, WO 2023199114. The teachings of Priebatsch et al have been discussed above.
Priebatsch et al fail to disclose a blockchain as the database.
Yang et al disclose systems and methods for digital gift card marketplace and redemptions comprising: databases for storing the gift card information, wherein the data base is a blockchain (par. 00110).
In view of the teachings of Yang et al, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Priebatsch et al include a blockchain as a storage means for storing gift card information. Such modification would enhance security and would provide transparency and trust. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Priebatsch et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heidari, US Pub. 2020/0311715, discloses methods and apparatus for payment card activation. Arora et al, US Pub. 2020/0104829, disclose methods and systems for redeeming a gift card at a merchant terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights