DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in reply to the remarks and/or arguments for Application 19/237,758 filed on 13 June 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-40 have been added.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 13 June 2025 and 23 February 2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 21-40 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, representative claim 21 is directed towards facilitating authorizing a financial transaction after an account associated with a user has been suspended. Claim 21 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate use of a replacement, provisional, or substitute payment object (i.e.., token or card) comprising the steps of merely receiving (e.g., financial transaction, account suspension, authorization data), validating (e.g., one-time pin), updating (e.g., replacement account number), processing (e.g., authorizing the unallowed transaction), and transmitting (e.g., sending a notification) data and/or information associated with performance of a financial transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), grouping, in step 2A prong one, inasmuch as the claimed method as a whole is directed towards providing for and/or authorizing use of an alternative account associated with the performance of a financial and/or commercial transaction, involving steps merely based on rules and/or instructions, but for the recitation of computer components.
Authorizing the use of a payment object/token (e.g., account) associated with a financial transaction while utilizing identifiers in order to verify an account holder falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of the computer-related devices, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites:
“receiving, from a device associated with a transaction processing network, a financial transaction comprising an account number associated with a financial account;
based on a determination that the account number is suspended, determining whether authorization data associated with the financial account exists to authorize financial transactions associated with the account number after the account number is suspended;
providing an option, on a user interface of a user device, for a user to opt into a new account option for a predetermined period of time;
updating, based on the new account option, the user interface to display a digital wallet with a replacement account number, wherein the replacement account number is authorized for allowed transaction types;
generating a one-time pin to allow a user to complete an unallowed type of transaction using the suspended account number, based on selection of the option, wherein the one-time pin is sent via notification to the user device;
authorizing the unallowed transaction upon determining the one-time pin is associated with selection of the option; and
sending a notification when the user completes the unallowed transaction using the option”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “user device”, “user interface”, “digital wallet”, represent the use of a computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate replacement of a payment card comprising the steps of merely receiving (e.g., financial transaction, account suspension, authorization data), validating (e.g., one-time pin), updating (e.g., replacement account number), processing (authorizing the unallowed transaction), and transmitting (e.g., sending a notification) data and/or information associated with performance of a financial transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate replacement of a payment card comprising the steps of merely receiving (e.g., financial transaction, account suspension, authorization data), validating (e.g., one-time pin), updating (e.g., replacement account number), processing (authorizing the unallowed transaction), and transmitting (e.g., sending a notification) data and/or information associated with performance of a financial transaction using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 40 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 21 above and are ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 40 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 21 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 21 applies to claim 40 accordingly.
Dependent claims 22-39 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad, US 7,739,169 B2 (Hammad”), in view of Talker, US 2002/0120585 A1 (“Talker”), further in view of Beck et al., US 2018/0114212 A1 (“Beck”).
Re Claims 1-20: (Cancelled)
Re Claim 21: (New) Hammad discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a device associated with a transaction processing network, a financial transaction comprising an account number associated with a financial account; (FIG. 3: “Collect Information about Accounts Associated with Registered Accounts 310”)
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
based on a determination that the account number is suspended, determining whether authorization data associated with the financial account exists to authorize financial transactions associated with the account number after the account number is suspended;
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0011] “… system has sufficient mobile capabilities so as to allow an Entity to authorize an action …”; [0013] “… need for an action verification system that can prevent the unauthorized actions …”; [0017] “… The account number and PINs are used by the Action Initiating Party (vendor or bank) to verify the Entity's action, and to verify that the Entity can in fact use the account …”; [0048] When the Action Initiating Party 12 desires to execute a predetermined or particular action, originated by a predetermined or identified Entity 14, they would input an action verification request …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Hammad further discloses:
providing an option, on a user interface of a user device, for a user to opt into a new account option for a predetermined period of time; (C10 L15-19: “The consumer 30 may configure the notification service 25 to cancel an account that is identified as compromised, reissue a new account and reestablish links between the new account and the accounts linked to the cancelled account”; C12 L43-45: “The mobile device is provided with a new account (step 450). The new account may be provided directly from the issuer.”)
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
updating, based on the new account option, the user interface to display a digital wallet with a replacement account number, wherein the replacement account number is authorized for allowed transaction types;
Beck makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0003] “Specifically, financial account providers typically deactivate the account and/or the payment method immediately, and arrange for a new
account and/or payment method to be set up and provided to the customer.”; [0037] “Payment card 114 may include a physical card or other payment device, typically issued by a financial service provider and associated with a customer or client account. Payment card 114 may also be configured as a dongle, a fob, an e-wallet or any electronic device enabling user 110 to enter into a transaction”; [0063] “… processor 210 may analyze a client request to enable use of a payment method for a future
transaction, and associate a transaction rule with the client account stored in client data 234 to update the client account information accordingly”; [0072] “In some embodiments, upon declaring a payment
account as unusable, FSP system 130 may provide an app ( or app update) providing functionality particular to the disclosed methods to user 110 for executing on user device 112. The app or app update may thus enable a user to continue use of the payment method or account according to the disclosed embodiments. Additionally, in some embodiments, certain functionality particular to the disclosed methods may be "unlocked" within an existing financial service provider app executed on user device 112.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beck with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating processing of a compromised transaction.
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
generating a one-time pin to allow a user to complete an unallowed type of transaction using the suspended account number, based on selection of the option, wherein the one-time pin is sent via notification to the user device;
authorizing the unallowed transaction upon determining the one-time pin is associated with selection of the option;
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0058] “Verification Authority 16 stores the request and then processes the request. It compares the PIN, account number and other personal data submitted in the verification request with the data stored in the Verification Authority. Only when there is a match between the stored data and the parameters sent in the verification request, the request is considered verified”; [0064] “… Entities will have sets of individualized PINs (key codes or tokens) which one of them may be uniquely associated with, or identify a particular action. The PINs may take the form of password sets, numeric combination, numeric sequence or formula”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Hammad further discloses:
sending a notification when the user completes the unallowed transaction using the option. (C5 L11-15: “the bank sends new account information to the mobile phone. Thus, the card holder maintains a valid account on the mobile phone with only a slight interruption. The new account information may be automatically registered with the same notification service”)
Re Claim 22: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Hammad further discloses:
generating another notification with a list of recurring transactions associated with the suspended account number for a predetermined period of time. (C2 L19-34: “card holder registers different accounts with a notification service to protect the accounts from being exposed to fraudulent activity when one of the accounts is compromised. Other accounts associated with the compromised account may be identified even though the associated accounts are not registered with the notification service. The other accounts may be identified by information that is shared with the compromised account.”)
Re Claim 23: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 22. Hammad further discloses:
wherein the another notification further prompts the user to update information associated with the recurring transactions to reflect the replacement account number. (C2 L35-42: “… card holder may receive notification of the compromised account from the notification service or the issuer via a mobile device … When the account is loaded on the mobile device, the account is cancelled and a new account is loaded to the mobile device”)
Re Claim 24: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the one-time pin is enabled for a predetermined period of time.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0065] “PINs can also be generated automatically
by the Verification Authority and then viewed and approved by the Entity. The Verification Authority 16 will typically store the PINs for a predetermined period of time …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 25: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the operations further comprise determine whether a pin entered for the unallowed type of transaction matches the generated one-time pin.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0058] “Verification Authority 16 stores the request and then processes the request. It compares the PIN, account number and other personal data submitted in the verification request with the data stored in the Verification Authority. Only when there is a match between the stored data and the parameters sent in the verification request, the request is considered verified”; [0064] “… Entities will have sets of individualized PINs (key codes or tokens) which one of them may be uniquely associated with, or identify a particular action. The PINs may take the form of password sets, numeric combination, numeric sequence or formula”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 26: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Regarding the limitation comprising:
generating the one-time pin using a shared-secret based algorithm.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0016] “The PINs can be generated by check writing software, which uses the same algorithm specific for the Entity.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 27: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 26. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the shared- secret based algorithm is synchronized between the user device and a processor.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0030] “FIG. 8 is a schematic, diagrammatic view of another embodiment of an action verification system depicting plural verification authorities sharing verification data.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 28: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 27. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the user device executes the shared secret algorithm to generate the one-time pin.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0016] “The PINs can be generated by check writing software, which uses the same algorithm specific for the Entity.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 29: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the one-time pin is a character string comprising at least one of an alphanumeric character or a special character.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0043] “ "PIN" -The term "PIN" or "Pin" refer to Personal Identification Numbers, Key Codes or Tokens”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 30: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Hammad further discloses:
in response to determining that the account number is suspended, suspending use of the account number; and transmitting a notification to the user device indicating that the account number is suspended. (C2 L35-42: “In some embodiments, the card holder may receive notification of the compromised account from the notification service or the issuer via a mobile device. The mobile device may directly contact other issuers with one request to restrict access to any accounts associated with the compromised 40 account”)
Re Claim 31: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 30. Regarding the limitation comprising:
generating a second pin to conduct another unallowed transaction.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0058] “Verification Authority 16 stores the request and then processes the request. It compares the PIN, account number and other personal data submitted in the verification request with the data stored in the Verification Authority. Only when there is a match between the stored data and the parameters sent in the verification request, the request is considered verified”; [0064] “… Entities will have sets of individualized PINs (key codes or tokens) which one of them may be uniquely associated with, or identify a particular action. The PINs may take the form of password sets, numeric combination, numeric sequence or formula”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 32: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 31. Regarding the limitation comprising:
determining whether the one-time pin matches the second pin.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0058] “Verification Authority 16 stores the request and then processes the request. It compares the PIN, account number and other personal data submitted in the verification request with the data stored in the Verification Authority. Only when there is a match between the stored data and the parameters sent in the verification request, the request is considered verified”; [0064] “… Entities will have sets of individualized PINs (key codes or tokens) which one of them may be uniquely associated with, or identify a particular action. The PINs may take the form of password sets, numeric combination, numeric sequence or formula”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 33: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 32. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein upon determining the one-time pin matches the second pin, allowing the another unallowed transaction.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0058] “Verification Authority 16 stores the request and then processes the request. It compares the PIN, account number and other personal data submitted in the verification request with the data stored in the Verification Authority. Only when there is a match between the stored data and the parameters sent in the verification request, the request is considered verified”; [0064] “… Entities will have sets of individualized PINs (key codes or tokens) which one of them may be uniquely associated with, or identify a particular action. The PINs may take the form of password sets, numeric combination, numeric sequence or formula”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 34: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 32. Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
wherein upon determining the one-time pin does not match the second pin, rejecting the another unallowed transaction.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0018] “If an unauthorized person obtains the Entity's PINs, the unauthorized person cannot use the PINs in placing unauthorized actions because each PIN is specific for a specific action”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 35: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 32. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the second pin is generated within a preset time period of the one-time pin.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0065] “PINs can also be generated automatically
by the Verification Authority and then viewed and approved by the Entity. The Verification Authority 16 will typically store the PINs for a predetermined period of time …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 36: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 35. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein upon determining that the second pin was not generated within the present time period, rejecting the another unallowed transaction.
Talker makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0046] “… it should be noted that communication between the Entities, Verification Authorities and Action Initiating parties involved in a particular
verification or action may be triggered automatically, for example, by means of a sequential logic process, or through a time schedule system”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Talker with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating verification and authorization of a transaction.
Re Claim 37: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
transmitting a request for authorization data to the user device.
Beck makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0006] “Continued use of the payment method or account may be limited by a location-based and/or time-based transaction rule.”; [0007] “… processors are also configured to receive a request, from the mobile device, to temporarily register the user's payment account for use in a transaction, and associate a temporary transaction rule with the payment account based on the request, wherein the payment account is otherwise disabled. The one or more processors are also configured to execute the instructions to receive transaction information associated with a transaction authorization request for the payment account …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beck with the invention of Hammad as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating processing of a compromised transaction.
Re Claim 38: (New) Hammad in view of Talker in view of Beck discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21. Hammad further discloses:
wherein the unallowed transaction is one of an in-person transaction or online transaction. (C3 L66-67, C3 L1-4: “… issuer of the credit card determines that the transaction may be unauthorized and freezes the account used to buy the merchandise. For example, the issuer may detect a potential unauthorized use because the purchase total is significantly higher than other purchases commonly made by the card holder”)
Re Claim 39: (New) Claim 39, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 38. Accordingly, claim 39 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 38.
Re Claim 40: (New) Claim 40, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 40 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Checchio (US 6,023,682) discloses a method and apparatus for credit card purchase authorization utilizing a comparison of a purchase token with test information. A method and apparatus for credit card purchase authorization includes using a credit card validation unit to transmit to a credit card company computer a purchase amount, a credit card number and a purchase token comprising both
the purchase amount and credit card number which are encrypted using the user's personal identification code as a key. The transmission can be made by a wireless communications device, such as a cellular telephone or PCS communications device. The credit card company computer creates a test token by encrypting the received credit card number and purchase amount using a stored user's personal identification code number as a key. The test token is then compared to the purchase token. If the test token corresponds to the purchase token, the purchase is considered to be authorized.
Kuang (US 2009/0031407 A1) discloses a method and system for security check or verification. An security check or verification method includes generating at least one verification code or number for each user at a security check/verification server, sending the generated verification code or number to user's dedicated mobile device though a secured connection, entering the verification code when user login to a web site, sending the verification code or number to the security check server from the web site server, allowing the user access based on the correct user name, password, and the confirmation form the security check server.
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights