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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,238,441 in view of Hurry (US 20180075450).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, patented claim 1 recites: A method, comprising:
storing, by a financial institution computing system, in a database, a plurality of personal identification numbers (PINs) for authenticating transactions conducted using a payment card account, wherein each PIN of the plurality of PINs are associated with the payment card account;
providing, by the financial institution computing system, to a thin-client application executing on a client device, a first web page including a user interface comprising a plurality of links, each of the plurality of links corresponding to a respective PIN of the plurality of PINs associated with the payment card account;
receiving, by the financial institution computing system, responsive to an interaction with a first link of the plurality of links corresponding to a first PIN of the plurality of PINs, via the first web page displayed in the thin-client application, a first request to modify the first PIN of the plurality of PINs associated with the payment card account, the first request comprising (i) the first PIN, (ii) a replacement PIN, and (iii) a password that is required to authenticate a user of the client device as having authority to configure the payment card account, wherein the password is different from the first PIN and different from the replacement PIN;
authorizing the requested modification to the first PIN by authenticating, by the financial institution computing system, the password included in the first request;
responsive to authorizing the requested modification, replacing, by the financial institution computing system, the first PIN with the replacement PIN, such that the replacement PIN is associated with the payment card account;
receiving, by the financial institution computing system, via the user interface displayed in the thin-client application, a second request comprising a selection of an account profile of a plurality of account profiles associated with the payment card account to assign to the replacement PIN;
assigning, by the financial institution computing system, the selected account profile to the replacement PIN associated with the payment card account;
receiving, by the financial institution computing system via the user interface of the thin-client application executing on the client device, a request to add a restriction to the selected account profile of the plurality of account profiles of the payment card account, the restriction including at least one of a purchase limit, a location limit, or an expiration period;
modifying, by the financial institution computing system, the selected account profile by storing, in the database, the restriction in association with the selected account profile assigned to the replacement PIN;
receiving, by the financial institution computing system from a merchant computing device, a transaction request for a transaction, the transaction request identifying the payment card account and including the replacement PIN;
retrieving, by the financial institution computing system, from the database and responsive to receiving the transaction request, the restriction stored in association with the selected account profile that is assigned to the PIN included in the transaction request;
determining, by the financial institution computing system, that the transaction request is compliant with the restriction;
transmitting, by the financial institution computing system to the merchant computing device, an indication that the transaction request is compliant with the restriction;
identifying, by the financial institution computing system, a budget category associated with the selected account profile;
assigning, by the financial institution computing system, an amount of the transaction to the budget category;
applying, by the financial institution computing system, the transaction to the payment card account;
receiving, by the financial institution computing system from the merchant computing device, a second transaction request for a second transaction, the second transaction request identifying the payment card account and including the replacement PIN;
retrieving, by the financial institution computing system, from the database and responsive to receiving the second transaction request, the restriction stored in association with the selected account profile that is assigned to the replacement PIN included in the transaction request;
determining, by the financial institution computing system, that the second transaction request is not compliant with the restriction; and
denying, by the financial institution computing system, the second transaction request responsive to determining that the second transaction request is not compliant with the restriction.
Patented claim 1 differs in that it does not disclose: receiving, by the computing system and from a thin-client application executing on a client device, an application programming interface (API) request transmitted to an API endpoint of the computing system. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hurry discloses: receiving, by the computing system and from a thin-client application executing on a client device, an application programming interface (API) request transmitted to an API endpoint of the computing system (Fig. 1, 0017). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify patented claim 1 by including an API as disclosed by Hurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Patented claim 1 differs further since it recites additional claim limitations including: personal identification numbers (PINs); web pages; links; a password that is required to authenticate a user of the client device as having authority to configure the payment card account, wherein the password is different from the first PIN and different from the replacement PIN; receiving, by the financial institution computing system, via the user interface displayed in the thin-client application, a second request comprising a selection of an account profile of a plurality of account profiles associated with the payment card account to assign to the replacement PIN; assigning, by the financial institution computing system, the selected account profile to the replacement PIN associated with the payment card account; receiving, by the financial institution computing system via the user interface of the thin-client application executing on the client device, a request to add a restriction to the selected account profile of the plurality of account profiles of the payment card account, the restriction including at least one of a purchase limit, a location limit, or an expiration period; modifying, by the financial institution computing system, the selected account profile by storing, in the database, the restriction in association with the selected account profile assigned to the replacement PIN; and retrieving, by the financial institution computing system, from the database and responsive to receiving the transaction request, the restriction stored in association with the selected account profile that is assigned to the PIN included in the transaction request. However, it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-18 are directed to a system, and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites: A method, comprising:
storing, by a computing system and in a database, a plurality of personal identification identifiers for authenticating transactions conducted using a payment card account;
receiving, by the computing system and from a thin-client application executing on a client device, an application programming interface (API) request transmitted to an API endpoint of the computing system;
responsive to authenticating the thin-client application, providing or causing to provide, by the computing system and to the thin-client application executing on the client device, a first graphical user interface including each personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers associated with the payment card account;
presenting, by the computing system, responsive to a first interaction with the first graphical user interface, a second graphical user interface in the thin-client application, the second graphical user interface comprising a set of fields to receive replacement personal identification identifiers;
receiving, by the computing system, a first request to modify a first personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers associated with the payment card account, the first request comprising (i) the first personal identification identifier and (ii) a replacement personal identification identifier provided via the second graphical user interface;
authorizing the first request to modify the first personal identification identifier by authenticating, by the computing system, an authentication credential associated with the payment card account;
responsive to authorizing the first request to modify the first personal identification identifier, replacing, by the computing system, the first personal identification identifier with the replacement personal identification identifier, such that the replacement personal identification identifier is associated with the payment card account and a restriction previously associated with the first personal identification identifier;
receiving, by the computing system and from a merchant computing device, a transaction request for a transaction, the transaction request identifying the payment card account and including the replacement personal identification identifier;
determining, by the computing system, that the transaction request fails to satisfy the restriction associated with the replacement personal identification identifier; and
denying, by the computing system, the transaction request responsive to determining that the transaction request fails to satisfy the restriction associated with the replacement personal identification identifier.
(Additional element(s) emphasized in bold)
The above claim describes a process for storing a plurality of personal identification identifiers for authenticating transactions conducted using a payment card account; responsive to authenticating the user, providing an interface displaying the plurality of identifiers and allowing the user to replace at least one of the identifiers; receiving a request to replace one of the identifiers, the request comprising the personal identification identifier and a replacement personal identification identifier; authorizing and authenticating the user request; replacing the identifier with the replacement identifier after successful authentication, such that the replacement identifier is associated with the payment card account and a restriction previously associated with the original identifier; receiving a transaction request including the replacement identifier; determining the transaction request fails to satisfy the restriction associated with the replacement identifier; and denying the transaction request. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of managing financial account credentials (e.g. PINs) and transaction processing/validation which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas under the “fundamental economic principles and practices” sub-grouping in prong one of step 2A. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04), the additional elements of the claim such as computing system, client device, merchant computing system, thin-client application, API, and graphical user interface merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The use of a thin-client application, API, and graphical user interface do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. web-based financial applications) due to reciting such elements at no more than a high level of generality (e.g. the thin-client application, API, and graphical user interface are merely digital substitutes for a physical interface such as paper forms for changing account PINs). Furthermore, the use of processors/computers (computing system, client device, merchant computing system) as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (i.e. “apply it”). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of computing system, client device, merchant computing system, thin-client application, API, and graphical user interface do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, The use of a thin-client application, API, and graphical user interface do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. web-based financial applications) due to reciting such elements at no more than a high level of generality (e.g. the thin-client application, API, and graphical user interface are merely digital substitutes for a physical interface such as paper forms for changing account PINs). Furthermore, the use of a computing system, client device, and merchant computing system does no more than use computers/processors as tools to implement and/or automate the abstract idea (i.e. “apply it”). Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of changing a financial account credential and processing an associated transaction using a computer. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 further describe characteristics of data (e.g. various account restrictions, interfaces, and types of accounts) and/or continue to describe abstract ideas such as account management and transaction restrictions. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
The same analysis pertaining to the abstract idea of changing a credential of a financial account and processing/approving a subsequent transaction holds true for claims 10-20 as well, with the additional elements of memory and processor merely using a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 10-20 are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gephart et al. (USP 7954704 "Gephart") in view of Hurry (US 20180075450 "Hurry") and Ellis et al. (USP 8639621 "Ellis").
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Gephart discloses: A method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising: storing, by a computing system and in a database, a plurality of personal identification identifiers for authenticating transactions conducted using a payment card account (Fig. 1, Col 8 line 9-56);
...replacing, by the computing system, the first personal identification identifier with the replacement personal identification identifier, such that the replacement personal identification identifier is associated with the payment card account and a restriction previously associated with the first personal identification identifier (Col 9 line 27-37).
receiving, by the computing system and from a merchant computing device, a transaction request for a transaction, the transaction request identifying the payment card account and including the replacement personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 8 line 43-Col 9 line 26);
determining, by the computing system, that the transaction request fails to satisfy the restriction associated with the replacement personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 9 line 1-26);
and denying, by the computing system, the transaction request responsive to determining that the transaction request fails to satisfy the restriction associated with the replacement personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 9 line 1-26).
Gephart does not disclose: receiving, by the computing system and from a thin-client application executing on a client device, an application programming interface (API) request transmitted to an API endpoint of the computing system;
presenting, by the computing system, responsive to a first interaction with the first graphical user interface, a second graphical user interface in the thin-client application, the second graphical user interface comprising a set of fields to receive replacement personal identification identifiers;
receiving, by the computing system, a first request to modify a first personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers associated with the payment card account, the first request comprising (i) the first personal identification identifier and (ii) a replacement personal identification identifier provided via the second graphical user interface;
authorizing the first request to modify the first personal identification identifier by authenticating, by the computing system, an authentication credential associated with the payment card account; and
responsive to authorizing the first request to modify the first personal identification identifier, replacing, by the computing system, the first personal identification identifier with the replacement personal identification identifier, such that the replacement personal identification identifier is associated with the payment card account and a restriction previously associated with the first personal identification identifier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hurry discloses: receiving, by the computing system and from a thin-client application executing on a client device, an application programming interface (API) request transmitted to an API endpoint of the computing system (Fig. 1, 0017);
presenting, by the computing system, responsive to a first interaction with the first graphical user interface, a second graphical user interface in the thin-client application, the second graphical user interface comprising a set of fields to receive replacement personal identification identifiers (Fig. 4-5, 0031-0032, 0036-0037);;
receiving, by the computing system, a first request to modify a first personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers associated with the payment card account, the first request comprising (i) the first personal identification identifier and (ii) a replacement personal identification identifier provided via the second graphical user interface (Fig. 4-5, 0031-0032, 0036-0037);
authorizing the first request to modify the first personal identification identifier by authenticating, by the computing system, an authentication credential associated with the payment card account (Fig. 4-5, 0031-0032); and
responsive to authorizing the first request to modify the first personal identification identifier, replacing, by the computing system, the first personal identification identifier with the replacement personal identification identifier, such that the replacement personal identification identifier is associated with the payment card account (Fig. 4, 0036-0038)...
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 11, and 19 as disclosed by Gephart by including changing a PIN after successful user authentication as disclosed by Hurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to assure that only authorized users can change the PIN (Hurry 0031).
Gephart in view of Hurry does not disclose: responsive to authenticating the thin-client application, providing or causing to provide, by the computing system and to the thin-client application executing on the client device, a first graphical user interface including each personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers associated with the payment card account.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ellis discloses: responsive to authenticating the thin-client application, providing or causing to provide, by the computing system and to the thin-client application executing on the client device, a first graphical user interface including a personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers associated with the payment card account (Fig. 8, Fig. 25, Col 4 line 9-20, Col 22 line 19-28).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 11, and 19 as disclosed by Gephart in view of Hurry by including providing a GUI corresponding to changing a respective PIN as disclosed by Ellis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow simple web browser access to manage account information (Ellis Col 4 line 9-20).
Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis does not expressly disclose a first graphical user interface including each personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers.
However, displaying/providing a GUI including a plurality of personal identification identifiers would be performed the same way as displaying/providing a GUI including only a single personal identification identifier as disclosed by Ellis and would achieve the same results. Accordingly, it has been held that, "Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced" (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, as only a single identifier is interacted with, Ellis need only disclose displaying/providing a single identifier.
Furthermore, the only difference between a user interface comprising a plurality of respective identifiers of the plurality of identifiers and a user interface comprising a single identifier is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. The subsequent receiving step would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention to provide/display any number of identifiers corresponding because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Gephart further discloses: presenting, by the computing system, at least one field configured to accept at least one restriction and an interactive element configured to enable assigning the at least one restriction to one of the plurality of personal identification identifiers (Fig. 1, Col 7 line 29-Col 8 line 56).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 2 and 11. Gephart further discloses: receiving, by the computing system, a second request comprising a second personal identification identifier of the plurality of personal identification identifiers to assign to the at least one restriction (Fig. 1, Col 8 line 24-56);
and assigning, by the computing system, the second personal identification identifier with the at least one restriction (Fig. 1, Col 8 line 24-56).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 3 and 12. Gephart further discloses: determining, by the computing system, that the at least one restriction is applicable to a second transaction request identifying the second personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 9 line 1-26);
and denying, by the computing system, the second transaction request responsive to determining that the second transaction request does not satisfy the at least one restriction (Fig. 1, Col 9 line 1-26).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 4 and 13. Gephart further discloses: wherein the at least one restriction comprises at least one of a geographic limit, a spending limit, or a time period in which transactions are to occur (Fig. 1, Col 7 line 29-Col 8 line 37).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 4 and 13. Gephart further discloses: transmitting, by the computing system, an indication that the second transaction request failed to comply with the at least one restriction (Fig. 1, Col 9 line 22-26).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10. Gephart further discloses: receiving, by the computing system, a second transaction request for a second transaction, the second transaction request identifying the payment card account and including the replacement personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 8 line 43-Col 9 line 26);
determining, by the computing system, that the second transaction request satisfies the restriction associated with the replacement personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 9 line 1-26);
and processing, by the computing system, the second transaction request responsive to determining that the transaction request satisfies the restriction associated with the replacement personal identification identifier (Fig. 1, Col 8 line 43-Col 9 line 26).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 7 and 116. Gephart further discloses: identifying, by the computing system, a budget category associated with the replacement personal identification identifier (Col 7 line 29-Col 8 line 23);
and assigning, by the computing system, an amount of the second transaction to the budget category (Col 7 line 29-Col 8 line 23).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Gephart in view of Hurry and Ellis discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10. Gephart further discloses: wherein the payment card account is linked to a debit card associated with the computing system (Col 8 line 57-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Specogna et al. (US 20150095239) generally discloses systems and methods for providing temporary card account identifiers with associated conditions/restrictions via thin-client applications and API(s).
Kwak et al. (US 20170068960) generally discloses a web based payment service allowing management of a plurality of PINs, each having different payment limits/restrictions, for a single payment means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR RAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:00 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571)-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights