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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/17/2025 are accepted by the examiner.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 1, 11, and 21 recite receiving, by a point-of-sale system, a payment instrument identifier; determining, by the point-of-sale system or an issuer processor, if the payment instrument identifier supports item level adjudication; determining, by the point-of-sale system or the issuer processor, at least one of: a response code; a user identifier; or routing information; analyzing, by an adjudicator processor, transaction data comprising information regarding a product or service desired to be purchased based on at least one of the determined response code, the determined user identifier, or the determined routing information, wherein analyzing the transaction data includes: identifying program rules associated with the product or service desired to be purchased; and determining product or service eligibility for payment based on the program rules associated with the product or service desired to be purchased; and generating, by the adjudicator processor, a transaction message indicating that the product or service is eligible for purchase using a payment instrument associated with the payment instrument identifier..
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite determining, analyzing, identifying, and generating steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a system comprising an adjudicator processor; at least one one-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executable by the system, a point-of-sale system, and an issuer processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity for commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices. For example, but for “the adjudicator processor, the one-transitory computer-readable medium, the point-of-sale system, and the issuer processor” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually determines the payment instrument identifier supports item level adjudication, determines at least one of a response code, a user identifier, or routing information, analyzes transaction data, identifies programs rules, determines product or service eligibility for program based on the program rules, and generates an indication message. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, analyzing, identifying, and generating in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the adjudicator processor, the one-transitory computer-readable medium, the point-of-sale system, and the issuer processor are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform determining, analyzing, identifying, and generating steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 11 and 21 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 11, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the adjudicator processor, the one-transitory computer-readable medium, the point-of-sale system, and the issuer processor to perform determining, analyzing, identifying, and generating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 1, 11, and 21 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30, disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as different types of payment instrument identifier, identifier detokenization, eligible payment instruments comparison, error code generation, a particular basket adjudication instance, an open loop transaction information, a transaction identifier, the user identifier is not included in a payment instrument, the transaction data is not received by the issuer processor, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are not patent eligible.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 15-22, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150668 to Wade.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 21, Wade discloses a system configured for processing transaction data, comprising:
an adjudicator processor (fig 1, paragraph 28, an adjudication processor 10); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the system, cause the system to perform operations comprising (fig 1, paragraph 28, a market basket analysis server 12, a process control server 14):
receiving, by a point-of-sale system, a payment instrument identifier (paragraph 14, the payment mechanism presented (e.g., magnetic financial transaction card swipe));
determining, by the point-of-sale system or an issuer processor, if the payment instrument identifier supports item-level adjudication (paragraph 14, an object of the present invention is to provide methods to automate the creation and association of item lists invoked at the time of purchase from a point-of-sale device in determining if the item presented is eligible to be purchased by the payment mechanism presented (e.g., magnetic financial transaction card swipe));
determining, by the point-of-sale system or the issuer processor, at least one: a response code; a user identifier; or routing information (paragraph 76, The market basket analysis server 12 utilizes the PAN to determine the catalogs 18 and purses for the buyer account);
analyzing, by the adjudicator processor, transaction data comprising information regarding a product or service desired to be purchased based on at least one of the determined response code, the determined user identifier, or the determined routing information (paragraphs 35, 41, and 45, the present invention provides for the matching of items to multiple item lists for sponsor associated payment/settlement programs. With the present invention, a catalog 18 is directly related to an account purse. This purse can be associated to a restricted spend based upon the catalog 18 that is used to adjudicate an item list. For example, a financial transaction financial transaction card may support spending against a food items catalog and also an over-the-counter drug item catalog.), wherein analyzing the transaction data includes:
identifying program rules associated with the product or service desired to be purchased (paragraphs 7 and 45, An account record associated with the identification code is accessed and a determination is then made to ascertain if an item presented for purchase by the customer is eligible for a benefit discount. The authorization transaction contains transaction identification and requests for financial authorization against a specific financial payment account (purse).); and
determining product or service eligibility for payment based on the program rules associated with the product or service desired to be purchased (paragraph 78, The switch 16 matches the item data received in the market basket transaction, one item at a time. The switch 16 appends two indicators to each line item of the market basket. A flag is produced that communicates if the item is eligible or not eligible, and an indicator of the group (catalog) 18 is also determined to which the item belongs.); and
generating, by the adjudicator processor, a transaction message indicating that the product or service is eligible for purchase using a payment instrument associated with the payment instrument identifier (paragraph 79, Upon completion of processing, each item in the market basket and totals by each group are used to package the market basket transaction and returned to the retailer 24 for processing.).
With regard to claims 2, 12, and 22, Wade discloses the payment instrument identifier is an open loop card identifier or a tokenized card identifier (paragraph 65, PAN--Primary Account Number).
With regard to claims 5, 15, and 25, Wade discloses the operations further comprise: based on determining the payment instrument identifier does not support item-level adjudication, generating, by the issuer processor, an error response code (paragraph 76, the account number of a financial transaction financial transaction card (PAN) is not recognized by the switch 16, an error occurs and there is a rejection.).
With regard to claims 6, 16, and 26, Wade discloses the determined routing information includes information indicating a particular basket adjudication instance (paragraph 53, A financial transaction financial transaction card number 48 and associated catalogs 18 with that financial transaction financial transaction card are provided in order for the market basket analysis server 12 to use the catalogs related to the PAN, financial transaction financial transaction card issuers, and purses.).
With regard to claims 7, 17, and 27, Wade discloses the transaction data further comprises information to identify an open-loop transaction, prior to initiation of the open-loop transaction (paragraphs 39-40, 43, and 52, The switch 16 determines the nature of the transaction request 56 and formats data and routes the request through subsequent processes as determined by the type of request. The PAN of a transaction ties to an account structure that defines the applicable process control rules. Process control rules are provided to the switch 16 from the process control server 14, to establish the path of the financial authorizations.).
With regard to claims 8, 18, and 28, Wade discloses the transaction data further comprises a transaction identifier, and the transaction message comprises a transaction identifier (paragraphs 39 and 82, the switch 16 communicates the market basket content data and transaction identification information to the market basket analysis server 12).
With regard to claims 9, 19, and 29, Wade discloses a payment instrument associated with the payment instrument identifier does not include the user identifier (paragraph 27, A purse is an identifier for a financial account associated with a financial transaction card.).
With regard to claims 10, 20, and 30, Wade discloses the issuer processor is not configured to receive the transaction data (paragraph 43, the retailer communicates with the retailer switch 44 which pushes transaction data to the adjudication processor 50.).
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, 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 3-4, 13-14, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150668 to Wade., in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0193543 to Priebatsch.
With regard to claims 3, 13, and 23, Wade substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, Wade does not disclose determining if the payment instrument identifier supports item- level adjudication includes any transformations required to detokenize or decrypt such identifier.
However, Priebatsch teaches determining if the payment instrument identifier supports item- level adjudication includes any transformations required to detokenize or decrypt such identifier (paragraph 67, the management server 106 decodes the QR code and matches the information therein to the user's record stored in the database 260.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wade to include, determining if the payment instrument identifier supports item- level adjudication includes any transformations required to detokenize or decrypt such identifier, as taught in Priebatsch, in order to facilitate the creation, distribution, advertising, delivery, redemption, transfer, tracking, and management of item-level promotional offers (Priebatsch, paragraph 2).
With regard to claims 4, 14, and 24, Wade substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, Wade does not disclose comparing, by the point-of-sale system or the issuer processor, the payment instrument identifier to a list of eligible payment instrument identifiers or partial identifiers.
However, Priebatsch teaches comparing, by the point-of-sale system or the issuer processor, the payment instrument identifier to a list of eligible payment instrument identifiers or partial identifiers (paragraph 21, a promotion sponsor may select that a $2 off promotion should be provided to every person that has purchased a particular soft drink in the last thirty days, using the transaction system label that identifies the soft drink and maps to the various forms of descriptions of the soft drink across various merchant payment systems, The transaction system applies the specified criteria to identify a list of promotion recipient accounts with associated data matching the criteria.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wade to include, comparing, by the point-of-sale system or the issuer processor, the payment instrument identifier to a list of eligible payment instrument identifiers or partial identifiers, as taught in Priebatsch, in order to facilitate the creation, distribution, advertising, delivery, redemption, transfer, tracking, and management of item-level promotional offers (Priebatsch, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights