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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 04/28/2025 have been accepted.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-13 are directed to a system, and claims 14-20 are directed towards a method of processing limited use tokens, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A(prong 1), it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding independent claim 14, the claim sets forth a method of processing limited use tokens, in the following limitations:
Receiving cardholder account update information;
receiving from a point-of-sale station via a payment network a token authorization request including a limited-use token and an authorization value;
locating in a token database a token record storing a subledger identifier in association with the limited-use token, extracting the subledger identifier from the located token record, locating in a subledger database a subledger associated with the subledger identifier, and confirming that a balance value associated with the located subledger is at least equal to the authorization value; and initiating a transfer from a pooling ledger distinct from the subledger of a transfer amount equal to the authorization value.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to effectuate a purchase transaction at a point of sale. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A point of sale station;
A computer server;
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Dependent 15-20 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A point of sale station;
A computer server;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of United States Patent No 12,314,920. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to systems and methods for updating stored account holder data, as outlined below:
US Patent Number 12,314,920
Application number 18/893491
1. A token management server comprising: a memory storing a token database, a subledger database and a plurality of computer processing instructions; and a data processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to: save in the token database a limited-use token in a token record in association with a ledger identifier and a subledger identifier; receive from a point-of-sale station, via a payment network, a token authorization request including the limited-use token and an authorization value; locate in the token database the token record including the limited-use token, extract the subledger identifier from the located token record, locate in the subledger database a subledger associated with the subledger identifier, and confirm that a balance value associated with the located subledger is at least equal to the authorization value; and extract the ledger identifier from the located token record, and initiate a transfer from a pooling ledger associated with the ledger identifier of a transfer amount equal to the authorization value.
2. The token management server according to claim 1, wherein the memory further stores a funding database, and the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to save in the token record by: receiving from one communications device, via one communications channel, a token request including a reference identifier and a credential; locating in the funding database a database record associated with the reference identifier, extracting a validation code from the located database record, and confirming that the credential matches the validation code; generating the subledger identifier, initializing the balance value of the located subledger equal to the authorization limit, and saving the subledger identifier in the token record in association with the limited-use token; and providing the one communications device with the limited-use token via another communications channel different from the one communications channel.
3. The token management server according to claim 2, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to: prior to receiving the token request, receive from another communications device a funding request including the validation code and an authorization limit; initiate a transfer into the pooling ledger of a funding amount equal to the authorization limit; and save the reference identifier in the located database record of the funding database in association with the validation code.
4. The token management server according to claim 3, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to: receive from the one communications device a user identifier; confirm an identity from at least the user identifier; and initiate the transfer of the funding amount by obtaining authorization for a funds transfer of the funding amount from a source ledger associated with the user identifier.
5. The token management server according to claim 2, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to initiate the transfer from the pooling ledger by: obtaining authorization for a funds transfer of the transfer amount from the pooling ledger; and reducing the balance value of the located subledger by the authorization value.
6. The token management server according to claim 2, wherein the token request includes a device identifier, and the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to provide the one communications device by: locating in an address database a destination address associated with the device identifier; and transmitting the limited-use token to the destination address.
1. A computer server comprising: a memory storing a token database and a plurality of computer processing instructions; and a data processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to: receive from a point-of-sale station via a payment network a token authorization request including a limited-use token and an authorization value; locate in the token database a token record storing a subledger identifier in association with the limited-use token, extract the subledger identifier from the located token record, locate in a subledger database a subledger associated with the subledger identifier, and confirm that a balance value associated with the located subledger is at least equal to the authorization value; and initiate a transfer from a pooling ledger distinct from the subledger of a transfer amount equal to the authorization value.
2. The computer server according to claim 1, wherein: the limited-use token is stored in the located token record in association with the subledger identifier and a ledger identifier; and the pooling ledger is associated with the ledger identifier.
3. The computer server according to claim 2, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to initiate the transfer from the pooling ledger by: reducing the balance value of the located subledger by the authorization value; extracting the ledger identifier from the located token record; and obtaining authorization for a funds transfer of the transfer amount from the pooling ledger associated with the extracted ledger identifier.
4. The computer server according to claim 1, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to, prior to receiving the token authorization request: receive from one communications device, via one communications channel, a token request including a reference identifier and a credential; locate in a funding database a database record associated with the reference identifier, extracting a validation code from the located database record, and confirm that the credential matches the validation code; generate the subledger identifier, initializing the balance value of the located subledger equal to the authorization limit, and save the subledger identifier in the token record in association with the limited-use token; and provide the one communications device with the limited-use token via another communications channel different from the one communications channel.
5. The computer server according to claim 4, wherein the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to, prior to receiving the token request: receive from another communications device a funding request including the validation code and an authorization limit; initiate a transfer into the pooling ledger of a funding amount equal to the authorization limit; save the reference identifier in the located database record of the funding database in association with the validation code; and provide the one communications device with the reference identifier.
6. The computer server according to claim 5, wherein the computer processing instructions further cause the data processor to: receive a user identifier from the one communications device; and initiate the transfer of the funding amount by obtaining authorization for a funds transfer of the funding amount from a source ledger associated with the user identifier.
7. The computer server according to claim 4, wherein the token request includes a device identifier, and the computer processing instructions cause the data processor to provide the one communications device with the limited-use token by: locating in an address database a destination address associated with the device identifier; and transmitting the limited-use token to the destination address.
The examiner submits that the language as recited in the pending application is similar to that as recited in US Patent number 12,314,920 as shown in the table above, which shows exemplary claims 1-7 of the pending application in view of claims 1-6 of United States Patent Number 12,314,920. For at least the reasoning provided above, a Terminal Disclaimer is required herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid 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.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights