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 Application 19/244,676 filed on 20 June 2025.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claims 2-21 have been added.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 18 August 2025 has been considered. Initialed copies 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 2-21 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 method claim 2 is directed towards facilitating accessing a financial account associated with a payment object in order to process a payment transaction in an automated manner, involving steps which are nothing more than merely receiving, determining, identifying, processing data/information, but for the recitation of computer-related components. Claim 2 is directed to the abstract idea of facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., performance of a payment transaction while merely using predetermined/preset rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; following set of instructions; commercial interactions; managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in of step 2A, prong one.
Claim 2 recites: “receiving, by a set of service provider servers, transaction data associated with a transaction initiated using a digital transaction instrument, the digital transaction instrument linking a single credential to multiple financial accounts associated with a user of the digital transaction instrument for processing transactions;
determining, by the set of service provider servers, one or more parameters associated with the transaction;
analyzing, by the set of service provider servers, a set of rules stored in association with the digital transaction instrument;
dynamically performing, by the set of service provider servers and based on the one or more parameters and the set of rules, a selection of one of the multiple financial accounts for processing the transaction; and
initiating, by the set of service provide servers, processing of the transaction by the one of the multiple financial accounts associated with the digital transaction instrument”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Facilitating payment of a transaction using a suitable payment account is a basic economic practice and, thus, an abstract idea (Alice Coro. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l.). Because the claim is directed to the performance of economically related (e.g., financial) transactions, it is thus directed to an abstract idea. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Determining whether usage of an account for payment satisfies certain rules and/or conditions for using the account in a transaction falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, 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 “service provider server”, “digital transaction instrument”, whether implied or explicit, represent the use of a computer 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 facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., performance of a payment transaction while merely using predetermined/preset rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited while using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited.
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 facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., performance of a banking transaction – funds transfer; payment processing, funds withdrawal, account verification, etc.) while merely using predetermined/preset rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps recited r 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, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 9 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2 in terms of a server (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 2 applies to claim 9 accordingly.
Independent claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 16 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2 in terms of a computer readable media (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 2 applies to claim 16 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-21 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.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron et al., US 2015/0112822 A1 (“Aaron”), in view of Andrews et al., US 9,092,767 B1 (“Andrews”).
Re Claim 1: (Cancelled)
Re Claim 2: (New) Aaron discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a set of service provider servers, transaction data associated with a transaction initiated using a digital transaction instrument, the digital transaction instrument linking a single credential to multiple financial accounts associated with a user of the digital transaction instrument for processing transactions; ([0004] “FIG. 1 is an illustration of a process for paying for a purchase using a proxy card”; [0005] “FIG. 2 is an illustration of a process for paying for a purchase using a payment object:; [0016] “… The payment object is referred to herein as a proxy object, or in the case of a payment card, as a proxy card. For example, the proxy card can be associated with multiple payment accounts, such as credit card accounts, automated teller machine (ATM) card accounts and/or gift card accounts, by linking the proxy card to those accounts.”)
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
determining, by the set of service provider servers, one or more parameters associated with the transaction;
Andrews, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C1 L36-42: “… user may assign a payment instrument for all transactions until the assignment is changed or provide rules allowing a payment processing system to make the selection. Some payment instruments may be better suited for a particular transaction than other cards. For example, some payment instruments provide better rewards or provide better terms for transactions with certain merchant categories.”; C2 L24-38: “establishing a model for the user account based on configuration data received from a user associated with the user proxy card account, the model comprising identification of a particular financial account to use as a backing instrument for a transaction using the user proxy account; receiving data associated with a pending transaction with a merchant, the transaction being conducted between a merchant computing device and the user, the data comprising information regarding the pending transaction and information provided to the merchant computing device to identify the user proxy account; identifying a financial account from among the plurality of financial accounts to use as a backing instrument for the pending transaction based at least in part on a comparison of the model with the pending transaction 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 Andrews with the invention of Aaron as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating processing of a payment transaction in an automated manner.
Aaron further discloses:
analyzing, by the set of service provider servers, a set of rules stored in association with the digital transaction instrument; ([0039] “At step 280, computer system 170 applies an algorithm, which can be customized by the consumer, to select the payment account to use for the purchase transaction. The following are example algorithms which can additionally be used for step 180 of FIG. 1. 1) When there are multiple payment accounts associated with object”; [0040] “For example, a consumer can use a proxy card to purchase gas and a snack item at a gas station as part of a single purchase transaction. For this purchase transaction, the payment account selection algorithm can select a gas credit card associated with the proxy card for the gas line item, and can select a VISA credit card associated with the proxy card for the snack line item.”)
dynamically performing, by the set of service provider servers and based on the one or more parameters and the set of rules, a selection of one of the multiple financial accounts for processing the transaction; ([0028] “Computer system 170, upon receiving the proxy card information, accesses a database access to obtain payment account information associated with proxy card 150. At step 180, computer system 170 applies an algorithm, which can be customized by the consumer, to select the payment account to use for the purchase transaction”)
initiating, by the set of service provide servers, processing of the transaction by the one of the multiple financial accounts associated with the digital transaction instrument. ([0021] “… The financial transaction platform has access to the database that contains the various data associated with the proxy card. The financial transaction platform determines that the transaction information includes proxy card information, and accesses the database to select a payment account to use for authorizing the payment”)
Re Claim 3: (New) Aaron in view of Andrews discloses the method of claim 2. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the set of service provider servers performs the selection using an intelligent algorithm that optimizes incentive programs associated with the multiple financial accounts for the user.
Andrews, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C1 L36-42: “… user may assign a payment instrument for all transactions until the assignment is changed or provide rules allowing a payment processing system to make the selection. Some payment instruments may be better suited for a particular transaction than other cards. For example, some payment instruments provide better rewards or provide better terms for transactions with certain merchant categories.”; C2 L24-38: “establishing a model for the user account based on configuration data received from a user associated with the user proxy card account, the model comprising identification of a particular financial account to use as a backing instrument for a transaction using the user proxy account; receiving data associated with a pending transaction with a merchant, the transaction being conducted between a merchant computing device and the user, the data comprising information regarding the pending transaction and information provided to the merchant computing device to identify the user proxy account; identifying a financial account from among the plurality of financial accounts to use as a backing instrument for the pending transaction based at least in part on a comparison of the model with the pending transaction 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 Andrews with the invention of Aaron as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating processing of a payment transaction in an automated manner.
Re Claim 4: (New) Aaron in view of Andrews discloses the method of claim 2. Aaron further discloses:
wherein the set of service provider servers selects the one of the multiple financial accounts without receiving input from the user on which one of the multiple financial accounts to use for processing the transaction. ([0021] “… The financial transaction platform has access to the database that contains the various data associated with the proxy card. The financial transaction platform determines that the transaction information includes proxy card information, and accesses the database to select a payment account to use for authorizing the payment”)
Re Claim 5: (New) Aaron in view of Andrews discloses the method of claim 2. Aaron further discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of a category of goods or services associated with the transaction, or an amount associated with the transaction. ([0039] “At step 280, computer system 170 applies an algorithm, which can be customized by the consumer, to select the payment account to use for the purchase transaction. The following are example algorithms which can additionally be used for step 180 of FIG. 1. 1) When there are multiple payment accounts associated with object”; [0040] “For example, a consumer can use a proxy card to purchase gas and a snack item at a gas station as part of a single purchase transaction. For this purchase transaction, the payment account selection algorithm can select a gas credit card associated with the proxy card for the gas line item, and can select a VISA credit card associated with the proxy card for the snack line item.”)
Re Claim 6: (New) Aaron in view of Andrews discloses the method of claim 2. Aaron further discloses:
wherein initiating the processing of the transaction comprises: establishing, by the set of service provider servers, a communication session with the one of the multiple financial accounts in the digital transaction instrument to process a payment for the transaction. ([0055] “All actions, decisions, determinations, and the like which are taken or received by computer system 170 can also be taken or received by financial transaction platform 575”)
Re Claim 7: (New) Aaron in view of Andrews discloses the method of claim 2. Aaron further discloses:
wherein the set of rules include user-specified conditions for utilizing one or more of the multiple financial accounts depending on corresponding parameters of any given transaction. ([0028] “Computer system 170, upon receiving the proxy card information, accesses a database access to obtain payment account information associated with proxy card 150. At step 180, computer system 170 applies an algorithm, which can be customized by the consumer, to select the payment account to use for the purchase transaction”; [0078] “[0078] Step 630 includes selecting a first payment account. Step 630 can be after step 625. The first payment account can be selected by computer system 170 and/or financial transaction platform 575, and can be based on an algorithm. For example, the algorithm can select the same one payment account for all payments made using the payment object. The consumer can change the payment account that is chosen. As a second example, the algorithm can select a different payment account for each purchase transaction, as well as for each line item of the purchase transaction.”)
Re Claim 8: (New) Aaron in view of Andrews discloses the method of claim 2. Aaron further discloses:
wherein the digital transaction instrument is embedded within a digital wallet application executing on a device associated with the user. ([0051] “In embodiments where object 250 is a mobile device, object identifier 255 can obtain identifying information associated with the mobile device. In one example where object 250 is a smart phone, object identifier 255 can communicate with the smart phone via 3G to obtain identifying information related to a digital wallet associated with the smart phone, the identifying information being part of the object information”; [0104] “the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the disclosure, may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application …”)
Re Claim 9: (New) Claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 10: (New) Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 11: (New) Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 12: (New) Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 13: (New) Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 14: (New) Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 15: (New) Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8.
Re Claim 16: (New) Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 17: (New) Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 18: (New) Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 19: (New) Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 20: (New) Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 21: (New) Claim 21, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
White et al., (US 9,864,986 B1) discloses associating a monetary value card with a payment object. Methods and apparatuses related to linking a monetary value card with a payment card. In some embodiments, a payer uses a gift card to pay for a purchase. The gift card is swiped by a point of sale (POS) system, and a computer system processes a payment. The computer system causes the POS
system to display a message prompting the payer to provide an email address for an electronic receipt. The payer provides the email address, which the computer system uses to determine that the payer has a payment card. The computer system sends a message to the payer asking if he would like
to link the gift card with the payment card, to which the payer responds affirmatively. The payer later uses the payment card to initiate a payment, and the computer system processes the payment based on the gift card that is linked with the payment card.
Ritchie et al., (US 2012/0173431 A1) discloses systems and methods for using a token as a payment in a transaction. Embodiments of the invention relate to systems and methods for using a token as a payment in a transaction. In one embodiment, a method for facilitating a payment transaction using a
mobile device can be provided. The method can include validating a user's identity; providing a token to the user; receiving the token and user identification information from a merchant as payment for a transaction; and authorizing the transaction.
Claims 2-21 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