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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application No. 19/083,582, filed on 03/19/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follow,
Claim Objections
Claims 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: concerning to the claims, “,,” should apparently be – , - appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-10 of US Patent No. 11,610,217.
Claims 1, 11, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,10 of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2, of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 3, 13, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3, of Patent No. 12,045,861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 4, 14, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4, of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 5, 15, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5, of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 6, 16, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6, of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 9 and 19, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 10, 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 of Patent No. 11,610,217. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1 -10 of US Patent No. 12,282,934.
Claims 1, 11, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,11 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 2, 12, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 3, 13, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 4, 14, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 5, 15, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 6, 16, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 8, 18, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 9, 19, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 10, 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 of Patent No. 12,282,934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“overlaying, …. an incentives indication presenting potential savings when a credit card product is used instead of a debit card for the debit card spending;… and facilitating, …., an application for the credit card product”
The “overlaying, facilitating” limitations, as drafted, is a process and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for identify in a financial account debit card use through financial transactions, categorize the debit card transaction and map the categories to incentives associated to a credit card. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “displaying debit card spending; receiving selection, … of the credit card product;’ These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data. The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“by a user device, access to a user interface”. The limitations comprise generic recited computer elements and software.
The use of “an application for the credit card product” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“by a user device, access to a user interface”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“by a user device, access to a user interface”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“displaying debit card spending; receiving selection, … of the credit card product;’These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“by a user device, access to a user interface”, are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. Concluding that generating information as a function of other information and a "dynamic" limitation is not sufficient to remove the claims from the abstract realm. The use of an estimation function is similarly deficient, as it merely reflects the use of the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of estimating advertising elasticity. In this case, “the overlaying, on the user interface, an incentives indication presenting potential savings “, and the use of “a user interface” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “by a user device, access to a user interface”,
limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claim is ineligible.
Claim 11: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a computing device (system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“and a system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to…”, these elements are recited in a very generic way. They have the same treatment pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, the claims recite elements such as “selecting a financial account based upon a comparison of the debit card spending to a threshold”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20140136309 (GOLMAN) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20130218657 (Salmon).
As to claims 1 and 11, GOLMAN discloses a method, comprising:
a) receiving, by a user device, access to a user interface displaying debit card spending;
(“Systems and methods for enabling a user to use a single financial card in a payment transaction for optimizing card rewards are disclosed. A database having a plurality of payment instruments such as credit cards, debit cards and stored value cards associated to the user's provided single financial card is provided”, abstract.
“0018] Embodiments of the present disclosure seek to address the aforementioned problems by providing a system and method for enabling a user to use a single financial card in a payment transaction for optimizing card rewards. The provided single financial card can be associated to different types of payment instruments such …, debit cards, … and stored value cards (e.g., gift cards). Such payment instruments can be stored in a database in an intermediary account that is accessible by the financial card upon receipt of payment transaction request from a merchant's processor….”, paragraph 18);
b) [overlaying], on the user interface, an incentives indication presenting potential savings when a credit card product is used instead of a debit card for the debit card spending;
([0013] FIG. 5 shows an example screen display of a companion mobile app depicting rewards/savings notification”, paragraph 13 and Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 see “REI Visa” and “AMEX Delta”, they are credit cards that offer rewards as showed in Fig. 5.
“[0056] A list of total potential reward values is generated, where each reward is tied to one of the payment instruments associated with the user. …”, paragraph 56);
c) receiving selection, on the user device, of the credit card product;
(“4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the payment instrument is selected from the group consisting of: credit card, …”, claim 4.
See also “The chosen payment instrument is then selected to route the transaction”, paragraph 18);
d) and facilitating, on the user device, an application for the credit card product.
(“[0002] Increasingly, reward programs have become commonplace in the credit card industry. These loyalty rewards programs offer cash back, rebate, air miles, points, hotel rewards and more. In addition, these rewards have rules that apply to a particular type of transaction, ….”, paragraph 2.
“[0013] FIG. 5 shows an example screen display of a companion mobile app depicting rewards/savings notification”, paragraph 13.
“[0056] A list of total potential reward values is generated, where each reward is tied to one of the payment instruments associated with the user. Once the list is generated, each reward rule is analyzed for any threshold rules (806). A "threshold rule" can be defined as a rule that imposes limits on a reward's validity, for example, a credit card program that specifies that a maximum of $1,500 in qualifying purchases per quarter is eligible for 5% cash back rewards. A threshold rule can also weigh user preferences of one reward rule based on the reward achieving a designated milestone, for example, achieving 50,000 points with a particular credit card program qualifies the user for a vacation package. Therefore, the user may prefer to earn a vacation package from a particular credit card over earning airline miles for another card. …”, paragraph 56).
GOLMAN does not expressly disclose but Salmon discloses
overlaying
(“[0003] The present innovations are directed generally to apparatuses, methods and systems for rewards, points and currency exchange …”, paragraph 3.
“[0152] Referring to FIG. 8P, showing an exemplary user checkout screenshot, a user may select from among payment options within an exemplary V.me overlay window 860a. Payment options are presented in a list, and each entry includes a row of corresponding exchange rates 860b (e.g., 100 Discover rewards points may be redeemed for $2.50 of value at Best Buy) and a row of availability timeframes 860c (e.g., instant, deferred…”, paragraph 152.
“[0154] Referring to FIG. 8R, showing an exemplary mobile device user interface depicting an electronic `wallet` (e.g., V.me) environment, a variety of value types are displayed (e.g., American Express gift card, Misc. Gift Card, Delta SkyMiles, BestBuy Gift Card, and a checking account). By way of example, assuming that a purchase was pending at Best Buy, all payment options would be shown as available (i.e., `non-grayed`) except for Delta SkyMiles, which are not honored by Best Buy. An overlay box is presented to the user, explaining that the 11,472 Delta SkyMiles are convertible (e.g., via UVE) to 200 Best Buy Points, which may be further converted into $2.50 off a purchase…”, paragraph 154).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Salmon’s teaching with the teaching of GOLMAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to
display an overlay in the interface presenting rewards in order to explain savings (see Salmon Figs. 8P and 8R).
As to claim 11, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above therefore is rejected in similar way and further the claim comprises
a computing device, comprising: a processor; and a system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device (Fig. 9 and associated disclosure).
As to claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14, GOLMAN discloses
Claims 2 and 12:
further comprising selecting a financial account based upon a comparison of the debit card spending to a threshold.
(“12. The method according to claim 9, wherein the determining further comprises: filtering out, by the computer, rules for each of the plurality of payment instruments associated with the intermediary account …. calculating a potential reward value for each of the plurality of payment instruments [debit card ] associated with the intermediary account; applying a set of threshold rules to each of the calculated potential reward values; … and sorting the list of rules according to priority of the calculated potential reward values and threshold rules”, claim 12.
“[0053] Each payment instrument can have zero or more reward rules associated with it (803). By way of example and not of limitation, reward rules can comprise a reward unit, a percentage value per dollar, a set of applicable transaction categories, and a set of zero or more thresholds associated with the reward. The thresholds can be, for example, duration, maximum earn in a particular interval of time, minimum spend required to trigger earning, etc”, paragraph 53).
Claims 3 and 13:
wherein the financial account is a checking account.
(“…A debit card is a payment device that is connected to a stored value account related to a checking or demand deposit account…”, paragraph 20);
Claims 4 and 14:
further comprising identifying the debit card spending based upon a transaction type associated with each financial transaction.
(“…The provided single financial card can be associated to different types of payment [transaction type] instruments such as credit cards, debit cards, ATM cards and stored value cards (e.g., gift cards). Such payment instruments can be stored in a database…”, paragraph 18).
As to claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 and 18, GOLMAN discloses
Claims 5 and 15:
further comprising identifying one or more categories associated with the debit card spending based upon a Merchant Category Code associated with each debit card transaction.
(“[0032] With continued reference to FIG. 4, different forms of reward valuation and prioritization can be stored as metadata and used for the decision logic in determining which payment instrument to be utilized. This information can be used as rules to make decisions for each payment transaction. By way of example and not of limitation, such metadata information can include, reward types (e.g., air mileage, points, cash back rebates), transaction category (e.g., travel, gas, food) …”, paragraph 32.
“…when the optimization engine (709) receives the transaction record, the optimization engine (709) considers transaction elements such as, identification of the cardholder whose financial card is associated with the transaction, the purchase amount, the merchant category code (MCC) of the transaction, and the merchant's name as presented by the issuer processor as inputs to the decision making process”, paragraph 51).
Claims 6 and 16:
further comprising comparing each of the one or more categories to each incentive associated with the credit card product.
(“[0053] Each payment instrument can have zero or more reward rules associated with it (803). By way of example and not of limitation, reward rules can comprise a reward unit, a percentage value per dollar, a set of applicable transaction categories, and a set of zero or more thresholds associated with the reward. …”, paragraph 53).
Claims 7 and 17:
further comprising receiving a selection of [a first category] of the one or more categories.
(GOLMAN discloses optimization of rewards for each instrument of payment and selecting the instrument of payment, “[0018] Embodiments of the present disclosure seek to address the aforementioned problems by providing a system and method for enabling a user to use a single financial card in a payment transaction for optimizing card rewards…The card enables the user to use one single card to mediate and route the transactions to the plurality of payment instruments that provide the best reward value for that transaction. This can be achieved by calculating the rewards valuation for each payment instrument to determine the best rewards based on rules configured by the user. The chosen payment instrument is then selected to route the transaction..”, paragraph 18.
GOLMAN discloses transaction categories, “0032] With continued reference to FIG. 4, different forms of reward valuation and prioritization can be stored as metadata and used for the decision logic in determining which payment instrument to be utilized. This information can be used as rules to make decisions for each payment transaction. By way of example and not of limitation, such metadata information can include, reward types (e.g., air mileage, points, cash back rebates), transaction category (e.g., travel, gas, food), and time based information (e.g., July, December, promotional period)….”, paragraph 32.
“[0053] Each payment instrument can have zero or more reward rules associated with it (803). By way of example and not of limitation, reward rules can comprise a reward unit, a percentage value per dollar, a set of applicable transaction categories, and a set of zero or more thresholds associated with the reward. …”, paragraph 53).
GOLMAN does not expressly disclose
selection of a first category
But from GOLDEN’s teaching of optimization of rewards for each instrument of payment and selecting the instrument of payment, paragraph 18; transaction categories, paragraphs 32 and 53; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate GOLDEN’s teaching in the mentioned paragraphs 18, 32 and 53 , to arrive to the claimed limitation “selection of a first category “ and the result would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 8 and 18:
further comprising listing a subset of debit card transactions [associated with the first category].
(GOLDEN teaches transaction record and merchant category code (MCC) of the transaction, “[0051] Turning back to the optimization engine (709) in the intermediary account (707), where the optimization engine (709) processes a decision according to a set of rules as shown by a flow chart in FIG. 8, when the optimization engine (709) receives the transaction record, the optimization engine (709) considers transaction elements such as, identification of the cardholder whose financial card is associated with the transaction, the purchase amount, the merchant category code (MCC) of the transaction, and the merchant's name as presented by the issuer processor as inputs to the decision making process”, paragraph 51. And “…a set of applicable transaction categories,…”, paragraph 53).
GOLMAN does not expressly disclose
associated with the first category.
But from GOLDEN’s teaching of transaction record and MCC of the transaction, paragraph 51 and a set of applicable transaction categories , paragraph 53; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate GOLDEN’s teaching in the mentioned paragraphs 51 and 53 , to arrive to the claimed limitation “associated with the first category.“ and the result would have yielded predictable results.
As to claims 9 and 19, GOLMAN discloses
further comprising displaying an amount of potential savings.
(“[0013] FIG. 5 shows an example screen display of a companion mobile app depicting rewards/savings notification”, paragraph 13).
As to claims 10 and 20, GOLMAN discloses
further comprising presenting other benefits associated with use of the credit card product including one or more of [ building a positive credit history, providing loss protection, and providing extended warranties].
(GOLMAN teaches payment instruments such as credit cards, “Systems and methods for enabling a user to use a single financial card in a payment transaction for optimizing card rewards are disclosed. A database having a plurality of payment instruments such as credit cards, …associated to the user's provided single financial card is provided”, abstract.
GOLMAN teaches that reward programs have become commonplace in the credit card industry, “0002] Increasingly, reward programs have become commonplace in the credit card industry. These loyalty rewards programs offer cash back, rebate, air miles, points, hotel rewards and more”, paragraph 2.
GOLMAN does not expressly disclose
building a positive credit history, providing loss protection, and providing extended warranties
But from GOLDEN’s teaching of payment instruments such as credit cards, abstract; reward programs that have become commonplace in the credit card industry, paragraph 2; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate GOLDEN’s teaching in the mentioned abstract and paragraph 2 , to arrive to the conclusion that any kind of rewards or benefits such as “building a positive credit history, providing loss protection, and providing extended warranties”, can be offered to users and the result would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“An investigation into credit card information disclosure through Point of Sale purchases”. IEEE. 2015. This publication discloses, “The use of debit and credit cards has become indispensable to consumers worldwide. This cashless method of payment offers flexibility and convenience. It eliminates the safety risk of carrying large cash amounts in person and cards can be cancelled as soon as it is lost or stolen. One of the most popular methods of non-cash transactions is through a Point of Sale (POS) terminal. A POS is a quick and convenient method for a customer to pay a business, but may lead to the disclosure of sensitive information without the knowledge of the customer. By investigating the information printed on the customer and merchant transaction receipts at various POS devices in South Africa, it is shown that information provided on the POS transaction receipts can put the consumer at risk as the credit card number, expiry date and name of the card holder may be printed on these transaction receipts. This paper investigates various POS devices used by South African businesses and the relevant information printed on the merchant and customer transaction receipts after a transaction. It is shown that the information contained in the transaction receipts from certain POS terminals is sufficient to perform successful online purchases at multiple online shopping sites. We also show that when the CVV number on the back of the credit card can be obtained while the transaction is in progress, even more online shopping sites can be successfully used without the authorisation or knowledge of the credit card owner.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 4/11/2026
Prosecution Insights