Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed on 06/25/2026.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s arguments see pgs. 8-9, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that the amended limitations recite a specific, unconventional technical implementation, namely, leveraging existing credit card payment network infrastructure to perform user authentication, that is not merely a generic application of an abstract concept. The claims do not simply recite the idea of authenticating a user; they require a particular technical mechanism (the credit card payment network) to carry out the authentication, which imposes meaningful limits on the claims and integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pgs. 9-10, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, and 16 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 that the currently cited prior art does not teach “determining whether the virtual card data is valid by transmitting the virtual card data through a credit card payment network for payment authorization” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim has been amended but is labeled (Original). Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 1 and 10-11 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 1 and 10 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claims 1 and 10 of 12,450,614 B2 comprise the concept of “receive a login request from a user device associated with a user, the login request identifying the user via a virtual card number; in response to receiving the login request, determine whether the virtual card number is valid; in response to determining that the virtual card number is valid: validate the login request; and identify an entity associated with the virtual card number; receive, from the user device, an authorization request; in response to receiving the authorization request, transmit a user information request to the entity associated with the virtual card number; receive a reply to the authorization request from the entity associated with the virtual card number; and in response to receiving the reply, complete the authorization request using the reply.”
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 2 and 17 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 2 and 11 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claims 2 and 11 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the login request is initiated in response to selecting an option on a login page to use the virtual card number as a login credential.”
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 3 and 18 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 3 and 12 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 6 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the virtual card number is provided by a browser extension in response to the login request.”
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 4 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 4 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 4 in 12,450,614 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the browser extension requests that a user login to a financial institution account prior to providing the virtual card number in response to the login request for the virtual card number.”
Claims 5 and 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claims 5 and 19 have a similarly-worded limitation in claims 5 and 13 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claims 5 and 13 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the virtual card number is customized for one-time use or a merchant website.”
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 6 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 6 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 6 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the virtual card number comprises different card verification values for different usage customizations.”
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 7 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 7 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 7 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the instructions further cause the processor to request a virtual card number login credential as a second-factor authentication after successful first-factor authentication.”
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 8 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 8 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 8 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein a usage pattern is analyzed to detect fraud as part of a payment authorization, wherein payment authorization is denied when fraud is detected.”
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 9 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 9 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 9 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein a machine learning model is trained and executed to infer the fraud based on the usage pattern.”
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 15 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 10 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 10 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the authorization request includes: sending the virtual card number with a zero charge amount through a credit card payment network to a financial institution that issued a primary credit card and the virtual card number for payment authorization; and authenticating the user to gain access to the computing resource in response to an approved payment authorization by the financial institution or returning an authentication error in response to a declined payment authorization.”
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 16 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 10 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 10 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “causing an interactive display of a user device to output a prompt for a request to access a computing resource; receiving, via a server hosting the computing resource, an access request via the interactive display; determining, via the server, that the access request includes a virtual card number; authenticating the virtual card number by: sending the virtual card number with a zero charge amount through a credit card payment network to a financial institution that issued a primary credit card and the virtual card number for payment authorization; and authenticating the user to gain access to the computing resource in response to an approved payment authorization by the financial institution or returning an authentication error in response to a declined payment authorization.”
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 20 have a similarly-worded limitation in claim 14 of US Patent 12,450,614 B2. For example, claim 14 in 12,450,614 B2 comprises the concept of “sending a virtual card number restricted for use by a website or mobile application the user seeks to access.”
Claim 12-15 are rejected based on rejected base claim 10.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Patent Application No. 20190306158 to Jain teaches a system includes one or more memory devices storing instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform the steps of a method for providing a credentialless login for a user. The system may receive a request for credentialless login from a user of a mobile computing device. The system may then receive an authentication of a user accessing a software application running on a mobile computing device. Responsive to the receipt of the authentication, the system may generate a random one-time passcode associated with an account of the authenticated user and transmit the passcode to the mobile computing device for display to the user. The system may then receive the passcode from a second computing device and responsive to verifying the validity of the access code, grant the second computing device access to the account of the user. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20210201319 to Vinayagam teaches a method includes receiving a payment request that indicates a card identifier corresponding to a payment instrument to be used for payment. The method further includes determining that the card identifiers fails to satisfy at least one card activity criteria. Additionally, method includes subsequent to determining that no failed authorization attempts were performed for the card identifier within a previous time period, retrieving, from a database, a decline probability score associated with the card identifier. The method also includes based on the decline probability score, determining whether to transmit an authorization request for the card identifier prior to processing the payment request. In addition, United States Patent Application No. US 20190197523 to Li teaches performing transactions using virtual card values is disclosed, including: generating a virtual card value corresponding to a transaction; sending a request to a card management server, wherein the request includes the virtual card value and a transaction amount corresponding to the transaction; receiving an indication from the card management server that the virtual card value and the transaction amount have been successfully stored; generating a merchant-related locator based at least in part on identifying information associated with a merchant server and the virtual card value; sending the merchant-related locator to a client device; and receiving, from the card management server, a request to transfer the transaction amount from a user account associated with a cardless payment server to a funds account associated with the merchant server. In addition, United States Patent Application No. US 20180375863 to Fan teaches example website login methods and apparatuses. One example method includes identifying a website jump trigger indication to jump from a first website to a second website. A first token is then obtained from a cookie store of the web browser, the first token associated with a website identifier of the second website and a device fingerprint indicating a running environment at a time when the password-free proxy login was previously set. In response to determining that a current running environment corresponds to the device fingerprint, a second token corresponding to the first token is obtained, wherein the second token comprises an access token indicating that the second website grants password-free login permissions. A password-free login request is sent to the second website including the second token. In response to the second website verifying the second token, the second website is logged into without a password.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim 1, in response to receiving the login request, determine whether the virtual card number is valid by transmitting the virtual card number through a credit card payment network for payment authorization; in response to determining that the virtual card number is valid: validate the login request; and identify an entity associated with the virtual card number; receive, from the user device, an authorization request; in response to receiving the authorization request, transmit a user information request to the entity associated with the virtual card number.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 10 are analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 11-15 are dependent on claim 10 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim 16, determining, via the server, that the access request includes a virtual card number; authenticating the virtual card number by: sending the virtual card number with a zero charge amount through a credit card payment network to a financial institution that issued a primary credit card and the virtual card number for payment authorization; and authenticating the user to gain access to the computing resource in response to an approved payment authorization by the financial institution or returning an authentication error in response to a declined payment authorization.
Claims 17-20 are dependent on claim 16 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,450,614 (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights