DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received January 08, 2026. Claims 2, 5 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 18, 24-27 and 30 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6 and 8-30 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
Priority
Application 17,698,674 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2019/051639 , filed 12/30/2019 claims foreign priority to 2019-240073, filed 12/30/2019.
Applicant Name/Assignee: LY Corporation
Inventor(s): Kim, Taedong; Chun, Seyoung
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points MPEP 2106.05(a) and points to the USPTO panel review of Ex Parte Desjardins where the court held that claim limitations should not be evaluated at a high level of generality where meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without explanation without consideration as to whether the claimed elements confer technological improvement to computer component of the computer system itself. Applicant argues the previous Office action improperly dismisses the claimed terminal, display and camera as generic computer elements where when considered as a whole the elements represent improvement to the technical field of transaction processing. Applicant points to the previous Office action response page 3 and 5-7. Applicant argues the claimed payment code is not merely transaction related data and that the camera claimed is not merely applied to scan data. Applicant argues that claim 1 specifies the processing being performed “based on the payment code being read by the payment processing device or payment information being read by the terminal”. The displaying of the payment code and reading of the payment information is used to trigger the processing and therefore an integral part of the payment process. Accordingly the claimed terminal is not merely a generic computer used as an intermediary but rather a particular machine that provides a practical application of the transaction process. Accordingly under step 2A prong 2, the claimed subject matter is patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The “payment code” readable does improve upon the ability of the terminal or camera claimed to perform the processing operations or scanning operations and is not directed toward improvement of technology itself. The specification (¶ 303) describes the “payment code” as encoded identifier of the share wallet payment token (barcode or QR code ect…) that are transmitted from the server and received by the terminal to be used to carry out the settlement using the shared wallet (¶ 355). Applicant’s argument “The displaying of the payment code and reading of the payment information is used to trigger the processing and therefore an integral part of the payment process” with respect to the payment code itself that is displayed and read does not trigger the processing it is merely data acted upon in the transaction. With respect to the argument that the displaying function and reading functions by the terminal and camera “triggers” the processing of the transaction. The use of the camera to scan/read the payment information is merely automating manual processes of providing payment information for settlements in a transaction. The camera and terminal are merely the field of use for providing payment information that is applied to perform the settlement process and not an attempt to improve upon any underlying technology or a technical process itself. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation “control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account, and update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Van Os teaches: control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account …((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20F-20J wherein the prior art illustrates display balance amount transferred to second account; 50A-50G; FIG. 51A-51B; para 0078 wherein the prior art teaches displaying representation of transfer of account that the account transfer is not below the balance threshold; para 0144, para 0383, para 0386, para 0399, para 0711-0714 wherein the prior art teaches displaying successful payment completed using payment account associated with graphical representation of balance transfer and updates balance indication to reflect amount of funds withdrawn to fund transaction or to other party. With respect to the limitation “control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account, and update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance”, the prior art Mossoba teaches := control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 4A; para 0048-0049 wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code choosing a card transaction limit for balance transfer , and update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance ((Mossoba) in at least Fig. 4A-B wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code; FIG. 5B; para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches generate graphical construct (payment code) including bank card, merchant information including identification information, and the user of the client device updates number of times using graphical construct generated, para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches generating graphical construct based on user inputs that includes bank card and merchant information, para 0035, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches generating a summary screen including the generated graphical construct, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches displaying status of online transactions as referenced in Fig. 5B; para 0044, para 0048
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, 3-4, 6, 8-27 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-23 and 28-30:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Medium claim 1 recites executed instructions (1) display balance data , payment button, code reader button (2) display readable payment code and count time of payment code expiration (3) count a remaining time of payment code expiration period and display remaining time (4) activate camera based on input to code reader button (5) display second screen comprising insufficient balance information of first account and payment execution button (6) receiving first input selecting payment button (7) perform settlement transferring funds to first account from a different account. (8) display first and second account balance and update payment code display code from first payment code displayed to second payment code displayed. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process when considered as a whole. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity and commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executed by at least one processor of a terminal with a display region, a second user terminal, a camera unit and payment processing device.
The display region of the terminal applied to perform the operations of “display a payment screen” with data; applied to display balance data.
The camera unit applied to read data on payment processing device.
The payment processing device or terminal applied to read data.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)
The claim limitations (display balance data , payment button, code reader button; display readable payment code; count time of payment code expiration; display second screen comprising insufficient balance information of first account and payment execution button; receiving first input selecting payment button) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation. The “displaying”, “inputting” and “receiving” are mere outputting of data and interactive GUI tools and mere data gathering number and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element payment processing device applied for inputting to the payment button on the display, selecting payment execution button at display region, transferring money from a first account to a second account, and count a remaining time of payment code expiration period and display remaining time, perform settlement transferring funds to first account from a different account, which are processes performed to implement a payment transaction and settlement and not directed toward the technology itself.
The recited limitation “count a remaining time of payment code expiration period” merely applies technology to control a transaction settlement process and displaying the count. The activation of the camera is being performed at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the technology without any details as to how the camera is activated as claimed include a manual process. The performing settlement processing is directed toward a transaction process.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations (1)-(2) and (3)-(4) is directed toward as a combination insignificant activity of displaying on an interface data where a countdown with an expiration of the validity of the payment code is displayed and interactive GUI tools where an input by the user of an interface button activates a camera for use an input device (Spec para 0205, para 0220, para 0227) where a countdown of a payment period is displayed showing the time frame the payment code is valid (para 0356, para 0431) which is a business practice, where the camera is for use to read a code (see spec para 0173, para 0325-0326, para 0493-0494, para 0637, para 0889) is for the use to collect data which is the application of technology to display and gather data. The combination of limitations (5)-(6) is directed toward displaying balance data and receiving input payment selection using a GUI tool payment button- applying technology to display data and select a payment – a sales activity and insignificant extra solution activity. The combination of limitations (1)-(6) and (7)-(8) as a whole is directed toward a payment settlement process and updating payment code display for first and second accounts . The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
The additional elements recited in the claim a processor executing instructions to control a display region of a terminal to display data, interactive interface buttons, and the use of a clock for counting time is merely applied in implementing the transaction process claimed without any attempt to improve upon any underlying technology, instead is merely for the use of displaying data, payment code expiration time remaining and displaying interactive interface tools operating at a high level without any details as to technical implementation. The application of the terminal is to read payment code data.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately and/or in combination, the operation performed by a processor executing medium instructions at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Although a computer readable medium containing instructions to perform a particular process, the claim is not truly directed toward a specific computer readable medium, but rather instructions to perform a method of a settlement of account process. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of performing a settlement process based on first and second accounts being different which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a settlement between accounts process and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor, a camera which is activated to read data, a clock to count time and a terminal to read data- –is purely functional and generic. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the medium claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Executing by a processor instructions to perform transaction activity “performing settlement process”, “display account data”, and “performing settlement process”----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “performing settlement
processes”, “display account data” and “performing settlement processes” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
CA 3059627 A1 by Zhai et al; US Pub No. 2021/0166213 A1 by Paulin et al FIG. 2-3; US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al; US Pub No. 2012/0310774 A1 by Chassin-para 0015, para 0017-0018.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 3-4, 6, 8-23 and 28-30 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward a transaction performed based on shared account and input received in display- a transaction process. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward payment is carried out from shared account balance- a transaction process. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward money transferred from second account to shared account based on input received- a transaction process. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward display code information associated with account based on user input in display and performing settlement process - a transaction process. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward second account is user account- a business process. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward displaying information of shared account balance based on settlement amount and sending money to second account based on input received by user- a business process. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward second account is user account- a common business practice. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward transmitting request for permission to use second account for settlement and processing settlement based on permission received- a transaction process. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward receiving charge information and displaying indication based on charge information- a transaction process. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward settlement using shared account with second account- a transaction process. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward payment executed while shortfall in balance of shared account is equally assigned- a transaction process. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward second account is account of business operator and settlement performed by lending from second account amount of shortfall in balance of first account- a transaction process. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward processing a settlement based on code displayed or code read from terminal- a transaction process. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward receiving first information based on balance of shared account determined to be insufficient- a transaction process. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward processing a settlement with a terminal corresponding to a store which sells goods/provides services – a transaction process. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward short range communication- well known and understood technology for example NFC, nearfield or Bluetooth. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward second account of first user different from user of terminal – transaction environment well known for example merchant POS and user of second account. Dependent claim 21 is directed toward second account selected based on input received from user- common use of technology in a transaction. Dependent claim 22 is directed toward second account based on selection of chat room including user of terminal and second user the selection being received from user of terminal- a transaction process in a basic technical environment. Dependent claim 23 is directed toward transmitting information related to request for permission to use second account for settlement and settlement executed-a transaction process. Dependent claim 28 is directed toward money transferred in a settlement. Dependent claim 29 is directed toward control display to hid payment code and timer when countdown time has expired- a business practice using technology. Dependent claim 30 is directed toward processing first and second account integration based on selection- a business practice.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 3-4, 6, 8-23 and 28-30 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim 24:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 24. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. Method claim 24 steps corresponds to the instructions of medium claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: Method claim 24 steps corresponds to the instructions of medium claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a controller of a terminal performing processing settlement, a display region of the terminal to display data, –is purely functional and generic. Nearly terminal for implementing a method of processing settlements will include a controller and a display region capable of performing the basic computer functions -of “processing settlements” and “display” data - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The steps of Method claim 24 corresponds to the instructions of medium claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
In reference to Claim 25:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a terminal, as in independent Claim 25. Such terminals fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Medium claim 1 recites executed instructions (1) display balance data , payment button, code reader button (2) display readable payment code (3) display count time of payment code expiration (4) perform settlement processing (5) display second screen comprising insufficient balance information of first account and payment execution button (6) receiving first input selecting payment button (7) perform settlement transferring funds to first account from a different account (8) display first and second account balance and update payment code display code from first payment code displayed to second payment code displayed . The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process when considered as a whole. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity and commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a terminal comprising a display, a controller, a payment processing device, a camera unit.
The controller of the terminal applied to perform the operation “display a screen” with data, “display a payment code”, in “input button”, “display a countdown timer”, “display a second payment screen” with data and a payment execution button; “display” an integrated balance and update payment code display from first payment code to second payment code.
The payment processing device applied to “read” the payment code.
The payment processing device applied to perform processing to a first settlement;
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)
The claim limitations (display balance data , payment button, code reader button; display readable payment code; count time of payment code expiration; display second screen comprising insufficient balance information of first account and payment execution button; receiving first input selecting payment button) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation. The “displaying”, “inputting” and “receiving” are mere outputting of data and interactive GUI tools and mere data gathering number and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The terminal applied to perform the operation “perform the processing related to the first settlement by transferring money to the first account from a second account”
The additional limitations for inputting to the payment button on the display, selecting payment execution button at display region, transferring money from a first account to a second account, and count a remaining time of payment code expiration period and display remaining time, perform settlement transferring funds to first account from a different account, which are processes performed to implement a payment transaction and settlement and not directed toward the technology itself.
The recited limitation “count a remaining time of payment code expiration period” merely applies technology to control a transaction settlement process and displaying the count. The activation of the camera is being performed at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the technology without any details as to how the camera is activated as claimed include a manual process. The performing settlement processing is directed toward a transaction process.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations (1)-(3) and (5)-(6) is directed toward as a combination insignificant activity of displaying on an interface data and interactive GUI tools where an input by the user of an interface button for the use to collect data which is the application of technology to display and gather data. The combination of limitations (4) and (7)-(8) is directed toward a payment settlement process and displaying integrated balance of the first and second account and updated the payment code displayed of the first and second accounts. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
The additional elements recited in the claim a processor executing instructions to control a display region of a terminal to display data, interactive interface buttons is merely applied in implementing the transaction process claimed without any attempt to improve upon any underlying technology, instead is merely for the use of displaying data and displaying interactive interface tools operating at a high level without any details as to technical implementation. The application of the terminal is to read payment code data.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately and/or in combination, the operation performed by a processor executing medium instructions at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Although a computer readable medium containing instructions to perform a particular process, the claim is not truly directed toward a specific computer readable medium, but rather instructions to perform a method of a settlement of account process. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of performing a settlement process based on first and second accounts being different which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a settlement between accounts process and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor, computer means to read data, –is purely functional and generic. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the medium claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Executing by a processor instructions to perform transaction activity “performing settlement process”, “display account data”, and “performing settlement process”----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “performing settlement processes”, “display account data” and “performing settlement processes” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
CA 3059627 A1 by Zhai et al; US Pub No. 2021/0166213 A1 by Paulin et al FIG. 2-3; US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al; US Pub No. 2012/0310774 A1 by Chassin-para 0015, para 0017-0018.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
In reference to Claim 26:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a terminal, as in independent Claim 26. Such terminals fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Terminal claim 26 recites functional process of a processor to (1) activating a camera for reading codes, the wherein clause directed toward displaying countdown payment code expiration failing to further limit the camera activation instead merely adding to content displayed (2) displaying payment information (3) perform settlement process based on accounts of different users (4) displaying insufficient balance data and payment button (5) performing the settlement process(6) display integrated balance and update payment code displayed for settlement The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process when considered as a whole. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity and commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a terminal comprising a processor to reach code stored in a memory and executed, a display screen, a camera unit, a payment device, a user terminal.
The additional element terminal processor to perform the operation display data on screen.
The additional element payment device to perform the operation update display of payment code
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)
The claim limitations (display payment code, displaying payment information, payment code read) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation. The “displaying”, “inputting” and “receiving” are mere outputting of data and interactive GUI tools and mere data gathering number and thus are insignificant extra solution activity
The additional element terminal processor to perform the operation of activating a camera for reading data displayed; determining payment code read; display screen and the additional element payment device to perform processing related to payment settlement by transferring money to first account from second account is merely applying technology to perform a payment transaction process
The wherein clause directed toward displaying countdown payment code expiration failing to further limit the camera activation instead merely adding to content displayed. The additional wherein clause limits the account balance data displayed and updates payment codes displayed without improving upon or directed toward any of the underlying technology.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations (1) and (2) as a combination is directed toward insignificant activity of displaying on an interface data and interactive GUI tools and high level function of camera activation without any details of technical implementation where the camera is used as an input device (Spec para 0205, para 0220, para 0227) where the camera is for use to read a code (see spec para 0173, para 0325-0326, para 0493-0494, para 0637, para 0889) is for the use to collect data which is the application of technology to display and gather data. The combination of limitations (1)-(2) and (3)-(6) is directed toward displaying balance data and performing a settlement process - applying technology to display data and processing a settlement – a sales activity and insignificant extra solution activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
The additional elements recited in the claim a processor reading and executing processes according to program code to activate a camera, display data, receive user inputs and perform settlement processes which is applied to perform a transaction without any attempt to improve upon any underlying technology, instead is merely for the use of displaying data, receiving inputs, activate cameras and performing settlement processing, operating at a high level without any details as to technical implementation.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately and/or in combination, the operation performed by a processor executing medium instructions at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Although a computer readable medium containing instructions to perform a particular process, the claim is not truly directed toward a specific computer readable medium, but rather instructions to perform a method of a settlement of account process. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of performing a settlement process based on first and second accounts being different which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a settlement between accounts process and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a terminal comprising a processor to read and execute program code computer where the processor is applied to activate a camera used as an input device, performing settlement processing, display data on display screens comprising interactive interface tools including payment button applied as an input tool used for selecting payment –is purely functional and generic. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the medium claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Executing by a processor instructions to perform transaction activity “performing settlement process”, “display account data”, and “activating camera, “displaying payment button”----are some of the most basic functions of a computer and interactive user interface. When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “performing settlement processes”, “display account data” and “activating camera” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
CA 3059627 A1 by Zhai et al; US Pub No. 2021/0166213 A1 by Paulin et al FIG. 2-3; US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al; US Pub No. 2012/0310774 A1 by Chassin-para 0015, para 0017-0018.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
In reference to Claim 27:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer readable medium, as in independent Claim 27. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Medium claim 27 recites instructions executed by a processor to (1) performing a settlement process, the wherein clause does not further limit the settlement processing, instead further limits data content displayed (2) transmit insufficient balance information (3) displaying information related to a payment execution selection by applying an interactive interface tool (4) perform payment execution settlement process based on accounts of different users based on user input (5) displaying integrated balance and updated payment code for accounts. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process when considered as a whole. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity and commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include non-transitory computer readable medium to store instructions executed by at least one processor of a server that communicates with a terminal, a payment processing device and a user terminal, a communication interface
The payment processing device to perform the operations of reading code, display integrated balance and display updated payment code.
The terminal performing the operation “read” payment information
The communication interface applied to perform the operation “transmit information”
The user terminal applied to perform the operation at display region “input selecting payment execution button”
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)
The claim limitations (transmit insufficient balance information, displaying payment information, payment code read, displaying information related to a payment execution selection by applying an interactive interface tool) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation. The “displaying”, “inputting” and “receiving” are mere outputting of data and interactive GUI tools and mere data gathering number and thus are insignificant extra solution activity
The user terminal applied to perform the operation “perform processing related to the first settlement by transferring money” is merely applying technology to perform a transaction process.
The wherein clause does not further limit the settlement processing, instead further limits data content displayed. The wherein clause “an integrated balance …is displayed” and “payment code displayed…is updated from first payment code to second payment code” does not further limit the payment device functionality but rather the data displayed and acted upon.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations (1) performing a transaction settlement and then displaying the balance information related to the settlement process- which is a sales activity. The combination of steps (1) - (2) and (3)-(5) is directed toward a displaying information related to the payment execution selecting applying an interface interactive tool and performing the transaction process. These functions are recited at a high level of generality without any details as to how the displaying, transmitting and settlement processing are performed as a technical process. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
The additional elements recited in the claim a processor reading and executing processes according to program code to activate a camera, display data, receive user inputs and perform settlement processes which is applied to perform a transaction without any attempt to improve upon any underlying technology, instead is merely for the use of displaying data, receiving inputs, activate cameras and performing settlement processing, operating at a high level without any details as to technical implementation.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately and/or in combination, the operation performed by a processor executing medium instructions at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Although a computer readable medium containing instructions to perform a particular process, the claim is not truly directed toward a specific computer readable medium, but rather instructions to perform a method of a settlement of account process. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of performing a settlement process based on first and second accounts being different which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a settlement between accounts process and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a computer readable medium comprising instructions executed by a processor to process a settlement on an account, to control a communication interface to perform the operations of transmitting data, the interface comprising a payment button (interactive interface tool) to receive user input, and a display to display data–is purely functional and generic. The first and second user terminals are not controlled by the medium and are merely part of the transaction process. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the medium claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Executing by a processor instructions to perform transaction activity “performing settlement process”, “display account data”, and “activating camera, “displaying payment button”----are some of the most basic functions of a computer and interactive user interface. When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “performing settlement processes”, “display account data” and “activating camera” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
CA 3059627 A1 by Zhai et al; US Pub No. 2021/0166213 A1 by Paulin et al FIG. 2-3; US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al; US Pub No. 2012/0310774 A1 by Chassin-para 0015, para 0017-0018.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 and 28; Claim 24, Claim 25, Claim 26 and Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al (Van Os) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0273017 A1 by Mossoba et al (Mossoba) and further in view of US Pub No. 2014/0022183 A1 by Ayoub et al (Ayoub)
In reference to Claim 1:
Van Os teaches:
(Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of a terminal that executes processing relating to payment ((Van Os) in at least abstract; para 0007, para 0032, para 0331), cause the at least one processor to:
control a display region of the terminal to display a first payment screen, wherein the first payment screen ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 1A, FIG. 8E) comprises a balance of a first account, …wherein the first account is a shared account, wherein at least a user of the terminal and a first user different from the user of the terminal are authorized to use the balance of the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20D, FIG. 20E; FIG. 50R; para 0704 wherein the prior art teaches displaying balance of payment account, para 1450); …
based on the payment code [payment instruction data] being read [means for receiving] by the payment processing device or the payment information [numerical values for transferring resources] being read [means for receiving] by the terminal, perform processing related to a first settlement based on perform processing related to a first settlement based on the first account, ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50R; para 0035, para 0061-0065, para 0071-0073, para 1450);
control a display region of the terminal to display first information indicating an insufficiency of a balance of the first account, and a payment execution button, wherein the first information is based on an amount of the first settlement and the balance of the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50R-S; para 0076, para 0079, para 0704, para 0725, para 0749, para 1450-1451); and
based on receiving a first input selecting the payment execution button at the display region while the first information is displayed, perform the processing related to the first settlement by transferring money to the first account from a second account different from the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 8M-P, FIG. 8V-W, FIG. 8AF, FIG. 11F, FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456).
control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account…((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20F-20J wherein the prior art illustrates display balance amount transferred to second account; FIG. 50A-50G; FIG. 51A-51B; para 0078 wherein the prior art teaches displaying representation of transfer of account that the account transfer is not below the balance threshold; para 0144, para 0383, para 0386, para 0399, para 0711-0714 wherein the prior art teaches displaying successful payment completed using payment account associated with graphical representation of balance transfer and updates balance indication to reflect amount of funds withdrawn to fund transaction or to other party, para 0758, para 0765);
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
a code payment button, and a code reader button
control a display region of the terminal to display a payment code readable by a payment processing device based on an input to the code payment button,
count a remaining time of a payment code expiration period using a clock unit control the display region of the terminal to display a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time along with the payment code;
activate a camera unit for reading payment information displayed by the payment processing device based on an input to the code reader button:
based on the payment code being read by the payment processing device or the payment information being read by the terminal;
…, and update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance.
Mossoba teaches:
a code payment button, and a code reader button ((Mossoba) in at least para 0018)
control a display region of the terminal to display a payment code readable by a payment processing device based on an input to the code payment button ((Mossoba) in at least para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches generate graphical construct (payment code) including bank card, merchant information, para 0020, para 0022, para 0027);
count a remaining time of a payment code expiration period …; ((Mossoba) in at least para 0020, para 0022, para 0027);
activate a camera unit for reading payment information displayed by the payment processing device based on an input to the code reader button ((Mossoba) in at least para 0018, para 0022):
based on the payment code being read by the payment processing device or the payment information being read by the terminal perform processing related to a first settlement ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 5B, para 0020, para 0022, para 0051);
control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 4A; para 0048-0049 wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code choosing a card transaction limit for balance transfer , and update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance ((Mossoba) in at least Fig. 4A-B wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code; FIG. 5B; para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches generate graphical construct (payment code) including bank card, merchant information including identification information, and the user of the client device updates number of times using graphical construct generated, para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches generating graphical construct based on user inputs that includes bank card and merchant information, para 0035, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches generating a summary screen including the generated graphical construct, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches displaying status of online transactions as referenced in Fig. 5B; para 0044, para 0048); .
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying different technologies of a mobile device including cameras, camera modules, calendar modules and interface technology to receive and perform a transaction . Mossoba teaches the motivation of that it is well known to apply QR payment codes that can be inputted via a camera/computer reading the code (see background) using QR quick payment codes that is used in payment applications on multiple devices with a payment application on a first user device with interface of client applications and an interaction on a second user device with interface of a commerce application executing on different devices so that payment information can be read between devices in order to provide secure transactions between entities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of the camera and camera modules and the means for receiving transaction data of Van Os to include applying a camera to capture transaction data as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches that such application of technology for receiving payment related data is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the payment instruction data displayed and selected as taught by Van Os to include displaying QR payment codes as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches that it is well known (see background) to apply QR quick payment codes that used in payment applications on multiple devices with a payment application on a first user device with interface of client applications and an interaction on a second user device with interface of a commerce application executing on different devices so that payment information can be read between devices in order to provide secure transactions between entities.
Ayoub teaches:
count a remaining time of a …[transaction type of indicator] expiration period using a clock unit control the display region of the terminal to display a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time along with the …[ transaction type of indicator] ((Ayoub) in at least para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches the indicator may indicate type of specific content such as a time limit for a user to perform an action)
With respect to the limitation “count a remaining time of a payment code expiration period using a clock unit control”, although the prior art does not use the term “clock”, the prior art does teach that transaction indicator content include expiration using a time limit),where the user required activity can be limited with expiration of a set time limit. According to KSR using common sense rationale, it would be obvious to “try” when choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art teaches that there is a need to use a countdown timer that measures that can be presented to provide in the display when the content type will expire. The prior art provides an identified predictable solution with the recognized need. Time limits applied can be implemented by a finite number of time units- clock units or calendar units. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Both Van Os and Ayoub are directed toward transaction activity to be performed. Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand on the transaction data content received related to the transaction and user activity required for the transaction of Van Os to include the type of indicator as taught by expiration features as taught by Ayoub since Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration.
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed based on at least the shared account and the second account, based on the first input received at the display region ((Van Os) in at least in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456).
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4.
(original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
wherein in the first settlement, payment is carried out preferentially from a balance of the shared account from among the shared account and the second account ((Van Os) in at least in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 0031-0033, para 0749, para 0788-0789, para 0792, para 1452-1456).
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein according to the processing related to the first settlement, the money is transferred from the second account to the shared account based on the first input, and wherein the first input received from the user of the terminal ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456).
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8.
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the second account is an account of the user [recipient] of the terminal. ((Van Os) in at least para 0842, para 1225-1227, para 1229, para 1243, para 1247, para 1424-1426, para 1428-1431, para 1444)
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9:
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
control the display region to display second information related to an insufficiency of a balance of the shared account, based on the amount of the first settlement, the balance of the shared account, and a balance of the second account ((Van Os) in at least para 0802, para 1225-1227, para 1229, para 1243, para 1247); and
perform processing related to sending money to the second account, based on a second input being received at the display region while the second information is displayed, the second input received from the user of the terminal settlement, ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 48L-S; para 1381-1391).
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10.
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the second account is an account of the first user ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456))
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11:
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
transmit a request for permission to use the second account for settlement to another terminal different from the terminal using a communication interface of the terminal, and wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed based on the permission being received from the first user ((Van Os) in at least para 1247, para 1319, para 1360).
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12:
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
receive, using a communication interface of the terminal, charge information related to a charge for an amount corresponding to payment using the second account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 42K-L, FIG. 42 O; para 1260-1262, para 1270-1273); and
control the display region to display a first indication based on the charge information ((Van Os) in at least 42C-L, FIG. 42 O).
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed based on the shared account and accounts of users, wherein the users are able to carry out settlement using the shared account, and wherein the accounts include the second account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 42K-L, FIG. 42 O; para 1260-1262, para 1270-1273)..
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above),
wherein payment that is based on the first settlement is executed while a shortfall in the balance of the shared account is equally assigned to the accounts ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 22A-F; FIG. 23A-O; FIG. 24A-C; para 0144, para 0387, para 0755, para 0786, para 0811).
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed based on code information displayed at the display region being read, or based on the terminal reading code information.
Mossoba teaches:
wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed based on code information displayed at the display region being read, or based on the terminal reading code information. ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 4B, 5B; para 0018-0020)
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying mobile payment applications for secure transactions. Mossoba teaches the motivation of applying QR codes in transactions in order to store payment information computer readable code easily acquired and read by transaction devices so that time can be saved in transactions and reducing the amount of information the customer is required to type into a mobile payment application by the customer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the means of receiving payment and transaction related information of Van Os to include payment codes as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches the motivation of applying QR codes in transactions in order to store payment information computer readable code easily acquired and read by transaction devices so that time can be saved in transactions and reducing the amount of information the customer is required to type into a mobile payment application by the customer.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the first information is received using a communication interface of the terminal from a server that processes the first settlement, based on the balance of the shared account being determined to be insufficient based on the amount of the first settlement and the balance of the shared account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 22A-F; FIG. 23A-O; FIG. 24A-C; para 0144, para 0387, para 0755, para 0786, para 0811).
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18:
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed using wireless communication with a the payment processing device, wherein the payment processing corresponds, to a store which sells goods or provides a service to be purchased according to the first settlement, and wherein the wireless communication is performed using a communication interface of the terminal ((Van Os) in at least para 0338, para 0908, para 1469, para 1471).
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the wireless communication comprises
short-range communication ((Van Os) in at least para 0166, para 1205)
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the second account is an account of a first user different from the user of the terminal. ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 42K; para 1259-1263).
In reference to Claim 21:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 21.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above),
wherein the second account is selected based on input to the terminal, the input being received from the user of the terminal. ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 42K; para 1259-1263).
In reference to Claim 22:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 22.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above),
wherein the second account is selected based on a selection of a chat-room including the user of the terminal and the first user, the selection being received from the user of the terminal. ((Van Os) in at least para 0433, para 0451, para 0603-0604, para 0609-0610, para 0619, para 0957, para 0665, para 1438)
In reference to Claim 28:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 28.
(Previously Presented): The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the first settlement is carried out using the transferred money.((Van Os) in at least para 0338-0339, para 0698, para 0717, para 0720, para 0757, para 0908, para 1289, para 1405)
In reference to Claim 29:
The combination of Van Os, Dhanoa and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 29.
(Previously Presentd): The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
based on determining that the remaining time has expired, control the display region of the terminal to hide the payment code and the countdown timer.
Mossoba teaches:
based on determining that the remaining time has expired ,,, ((Mossoba) in at least para 0020, para 0022, para 0027);
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying different techniques for transactions passcode received in performing a transaction . Mossoba teaches the motivation of that it is well known to apply QR payment codes with time restrictions in order to provide secure transactions between entities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of the passcode details in a transaction process of Van Os to include passcode time restrictions as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches the motivation of that it is well known to apply QR payment codes with time restrictions in order to provide secure transactions between entities..
Ayoub teaches:
based on determining that the remaining time has expired, control the display region of the terminal to hide the payment …[payment indicator content] and the countdown timer ((Ayoub) in at least para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches the indicator may indicate type of specific content such as a time limit for a user to perform an action)
Both Van Os and Ayoub are directed toward transaction activity to be performed. Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand on the transaction data content received related to the transaction and user activity required for the transaction of Van Os to include the type of indicator as taught by expiration features as taught by Ayoub since Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration.
In reference to Claim 30:
The combination of Van Os, Dhanoa and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 30
(Currently amended): The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
based on a selection of account integration, perform processing related to integrating the first account and the second account ((Van Os) in at least para 1237, para 1258, para 1261-1262);
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code associated with the first account to a second payment code associated with the integrated account; and
count a remaining time of an updated payment code expiration period using the clock unit and control the display region of the terminal to display the countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time along with the updated payment code.
Mossoba teaches
update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code associated with the first account to a second payment code associated with the integrated account ((Mossoba) in at least para 0028, para 0049); and
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying passcodes for transaction. Mossoba teaches the motivation that it is known in the art for updates of graphical constructs to be updated a number of times to perform online transactions by the user where a graphical construct is a QR code (para 0003). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of the passcode details in a transaction process of Van Os to include passcode updates as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches the motivation that it is known in the art for updates of graphical constructs to be updated a number of times to perform online transactions by the user where a graphical construct is a QR code (para 0003).
Ayoub teaches:
count a remaining time of an updated payment code expiration period using the clock unit and control the display region of the terminal to display the countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time along with the updated payment code.((Ayoub) in at least para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches the indicator may indicate type of specific content such as a time limit for a user to perform an action)
Both Van Os and Ayoub are directed toward transaction activity to be performed. Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand on the transaction data content received related to the transaction and user activity required for the transaction of Van Os to include the type of indicator as taught by expiration features as taught by Ayoub since Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration.
In reference to Claim 24:
Van Os teaches:
The steps of Method claim 24 correspond to the instructions of medium claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 25:
Van Os teaches:
(currently amended): A terminal for performing processing relating to settlement ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456), the terminal comprising:
a display ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 3; para 0006); and
a controller configured to cause the terminal ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 1A) to:
control a display region of the terminal to display a first payment screen ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 1A), wherein the first payment screen comprises a balance of a first account, …, wherein the first account is a shared account, wherein at least a user of the terminal and a first user different from the user of the terminal are authorized to use the balance of the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20D, FIG. 20E; FIG. 50R; para 0704 wherein the prior art teaches displaying balance of payment account, para 1450);…
control a display region of the terminal to display … [payment instruction data]readable by a payment processing device based on an input to the [payment instruction data] ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50R-S; para 0076, para 0079, para 0704, para 0725, para 0749, para 1450-1451), …
based on the payment code [payment instruction data] being read [means for receiving] by the payment processing device or the payment information [numerical values for transferring resources] being read [means for receiving] by the terminal, perform processing related to a first settlement based on a first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 8M-P, FIG. 8V-W, FIG. 8AF, FIG. 11F, FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456),
control a display region of the terminal to display a second payment screen comprising first information indicating an insufficiency of a balance of the first account and a payment execution button, wherein the first information is based on an amount of the first settlement and the balance of the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 23H, FIG. 50R-S; para 0076, para 0079, para 0704, para 0725, para 0749 wherein the prior art teaches textual indication stating “insufficient balance” and an account for selection, para 0761 wherein the prior art teaches the payment account has insufficient funds to fully pay transaction and displays graphical representation corresponding to a default account, indicating both payment account and default account for current transaction, where the default account is displayed, para 0772, para 1450-1451), and
based on receiving a first input selecting the payment execution button, from the user of the terminal at the display while the first information is displayed, perform the processing related to the first settlement by transferring money to the first account from a second account different from the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 8M-P, FIG. 8V-W, FIG. 8AF, FIG. 11F, FIG. 50T-Y; para 0761, para 0772, para 1452-1456).
control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account …((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20F-20J wherein the prior art illustrates display balance amount transferred to second account; 50A-50G; FIG. 51A-51B; para 0078 wherein the prior art teaches displaying representation of transfer of account that the account transfer is not below the balance threshold; para 0144, para 0383, para 0386, para 0399, para 0711-0714 wherein the prior art teaches displaying successful payment completed using payment account associated with graphical representation of balance transfer and updates balance indication to reflect amount of funds withdrawn to fund transaction or to other party, para 0758, para 0765); , and …
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
…a code payment button, and a code reader button …
control a display region of the terminal to display a payment code readable by a payment processing device based on an input to the code payment button;
count a remaining time of a payment code expiration period using a clock unit control the display region of the terminal to display a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time along with payment code;
activate a camera unit for reading payment information displayed by the payment processing device based on an input to the code reader button:
…update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance.
Mossoba teaches:
a code payment button, and a code reader button ((Mossoba) in at least para 0018)
control a display region of the terminal to display a payment code readable by a payment processing device based on an input to the code payment button, ((Mossoba) in at least para 0020, para 0022); …
activate a camera unit for reading payment information displayed by the payment processing device based on an input to the code reader button ((Mossoba) in at least para 0018, para 0022):
based on the payment code being read by the payment processing device or the payment information being read by the terminal, perform processing related to a first settlement based on a first account ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 5B, para 0020, para 0022, para 0051);
control the display region of the terminal to display an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 4A; para 0048-0049 wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code choosing a card transaction limit for balance transfer , and update the payment code displayed in the display region of the terminal from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance ((Mossoba) in at least Fig. 4A-B wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code; FIG. 5B; para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches generate graphical construct (payment code) including bank card, merchant information including identification information, and the user of the client device updates number of times using graphical construct generated, para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches generating graphical construct based on user inputs that includes bank card and merchant information, para 0035, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches generating a summary screen including the generated graphical construct, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches displaying status of online transactions as referenced in Fig. 5B; para 0044, para 0048); .
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying different technologies of a mobile device including cameras, camera modules, calendar modules and interface technology to receive and perform a transaction . Mossoba teaches the motivation of that it is well known to apply QR payment codes that can be inputted via a camera/computer reading the code (see background) using QR quick payment codes that is used in payment applications on multiple devices with a payment application on a first user device with interface of client applications and an interaction on a second user device with interface of a commerce application executing on different devices so that payment information can be read between devices in order to provide secure transactions between entities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of the camera and camera modules and the means for receiving transaction data of Van Os to include applying a camera to capture transaction data as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches that such application of technology for receiving payment related data is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the payment instruction data displayed and selected as taught by Van Os to include displaying QR payment codes as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches that it is well known (see background) to apply QR quick payment codes that used in payment applications on multiple devices with a payment application on a first user device with interface of client applications and an interaction on a second user device with interface of a commerce application executing on different devices so that payment information can be read between devices in order to provide secure transactions between entities.
Ayoub teaches:
count a remaining time of a …[transaction type of indicator] expiration period using a clock unit control the display region of the terminal to display a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time along with the …[ transaction type of indicator] ((Ayoub) in at least para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches the indicator may indicate type of specific content such as a time limit for a user to perform an action)
With respect to the limitation “count a remaining time of a payment code expiration period using a clock unit control”, although the prior art does not use the term “clock”, the prior art does teach that transaction indicator content include expiration using a time limit),where the user required activity can be limited with expiration of a set time limit. According to KSR using common sense rationale, it would be obvious to “try” when choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art teaches that there is a need to use a countdown timer that measures that can be presented to provide in the display when the content type will expire. The prior art provides an identified predictable solution with the recognized need. Time limits applied can be implemented by a finite number of time units- clock units or calendar units. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Both Van Os and Ayoub are directed toward transaction activity to be performed. Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand on the transaction data content received related to the transaction and user activity required for the transaction of Van Os to include the type of indicator as taught by expiration features as taught by Ayoub since Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration.
In reference to Claim 26:
Van Os teaches:
(currently amended): A terminal for performing processing relating to settlement ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456), the terminal comprising:
a processor configured to read program code stored in a memory and execute processing based on the program code ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 1A, para 0162-0166, para 0192 wherein the prior art teaches graphics model assigned corresponding one or more codes, para 0234, para 0278 ); wherein the program code is configured to cause the processor to:…
based on determining that the payment code [payment instruction data] is read [means for receiving] by the terminal or the payment information is read [means for receiving] by the payment device, perform processing related to a first settlement based on a first account, wherein the first account is a shared account, and wherein at least a user of the terminal and a first user different from the user of the terminal are authorized to control the shared account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50R; para 0035, para 0061-0065, para 0071-0073, para 1450), control a display region of the terminal to display a payment screen comprising first information related to an insufficiency of a balance of the first account and a payment execution button, wherein the first information is based on an amount of the first settlement and the balance of the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50R-S; para 0076, para 0079, para 0704, para 0725, para 0749, para 1450-1451); and
based receiving a first input selecting the payment execution button at the display region while the first information is displayed, perform the processing related to the first settlement by transferring money to the first account from a second account different from the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 8M-P, FIG. 8V-W, FIG. 8AF, FIG. 11F, FIG. 50T-Y; para 1452-1456).
wherein an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account is displayed on the payment device …((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20F-20J wherein the prior art illustrates display balance amount transferred to second account; 50A-50G; FIG. 51A-51B; para 0078 wherein the prior art teaches displaying representation of transfer of account that the account transfer is not below the balance threshold; para 0144, para 0383, para 0386, para 0399, para 0711-0714 wherein the prior art teaches displaying successful payment completed using payment account associated with graphical representation of balance transfer and updates balance indication to reflect amount of funds withdrawn to fund transaction or to other party, para 0758, para 0765); , and …
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
activating a camera unit for reading a payment code displayed on a payment device,
displaying payment information readable by the payment device, wherein the payment code is displayed along with a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time of a payment code expiration period
based on determining that the payment code is read by the terminal or the payment information is read by the payment device, …
…wherein the payment code displayed on the payment device is updated from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance.
Ayoub teaches:
displaying payment information readable by the payment device, wherein the payment [transaction type content] is displayed along with a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time of a payment [transaction type content] expiration period ((Ayoub) in at least para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches the indicator may indicate type of specific content such as a time limit for a user to perform an action)
Both Van Os and Ayoub are directed toward transaction activity to be performed. Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand on the transaction data content received related to the transaction and user activity required for the transaction of Van Os to include the type of indicator as taught by expiration features as taught by Ayoub since Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration.
Mossoba teaches:
activating a camera unit for reading a payment code displayed on a payment device, ((Mossoba) in at least para 0018, para 0022):
displaying payment information readable by the payment device ((Mossoba) in at least para 0020, para 0022);
based on determining that the payment code is read by the terminal or the payment information is read by the payment device, perform processing related to a first settlement based on a first account ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 5B, para 0020, para 0022, para 0051);
wherein an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account is displayed on the payment device ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 4A; para 0048-0049 wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code choosing a card transaction limit for balance transfer , and wherein the payment code displayed on the payment device is updated from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance. ((Mossoba) in at least Fig. 4A-B wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code; FIG. 5B; para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches generate graphical construct (payment code) including bank card, merchant information including identification information, and the user of the client device updates number of times using graphical construct generated, para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches generating graphical construct based on user inputs that includes bank card and merchant information, para 0035, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches generating a summary screen including the generated graphical construct, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches displaying status of online transactions as referenced in Fig. 5B; para 0044, para 0048); .
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying different technologies of a mobile device including cameras, camera modules, calendar modules and interface technology to receive and perform a transaction . Mossoba teaches the motivation of that it is well known to apply QR payment codes that can be inputted via a camera/computer reading the code (see background) using QR quick payment codes that is used in payment applications on multiple devices with a payment application on a first user device with interface of client applications and an interaction on a second user device with interface of a commerce application executing on different devices so that payment information can be read between devices in order to provide secure transactions between entities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of the camera and camera modules and the means for receiving transaction data of Van Os to include applying a camera to capture transaction data as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches that such application of technology for receiving payment related data is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the payment instruction data displayed and selected as taught by Van Os to include displaying QR payment codes as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches that it is well known (see background) to apply QR quick payment codes that used in payment applications on multiple devices with a payment application on a first user device with interface of client applications and an interaction on a second user device with interface of a commerce application executing on different devices so that payment information can be read between devices in order to provide secure transactions between entities.
In reference to Claim 27:
Van Os teaches:
(Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of a server that communicates with a terminal for performing processing relating to settlement ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50T-Y; para 0007-0008, para 0012-0013, para 0017-0018, para 0022,), cause the at least one processor to:
…perform processing related to first settlement based on a first account, wherein the first account is a shared account, and wherein at least a user of the terminal and a first user different from the user of the terminal are authorized to control the shared account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 50R; para 1450);
control a communication interface of the server to transmit, to the terminal, first information relating to insufficiency of a balance of the first account based on an amount of the first settlement and the balance of the first account ((Van Os) in at least para 0802, para 1225-1227, para 1229, para 1243, para 1247); and
based on a first input selecting a payment execution button being received from the user of the terminal at a display region of the terminal while a payment screen the first information and the payment execution button is displayed on the display region, perform the processing related to the first settlement by transferring money to the first account from a second account different from the first account ((Van Os) in at least FIG. 23N, FIG. 42K; para 0784, para 0855, para 0932 wherein the prior art teaches a don’t pay and pay selection button, para 1260-1268, para 1270).
wherein an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account is displayed on the payment device…((Van Os) in at least FIG. 20F-20J wherein the prior art illustrates display balance amount transferred to second account; 50A-50G; FIG. 51A-51B; para 0078 wherein the prior art teaches displaying representation of transfer of account that the account transfer is not below the balance threshold; para 0144, para 0383, para 0386, para 0399, para 0711-0714 wherein the prior art teaches displaying successful payment completed using payment account associated with graphical representation of balance transfer and updates balance indication to reflect amount of funds withdrawn to fund transaction or to other party, para 0758, para 0765), and …
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
based on determining that a payment code is read by a payment processing device and a payment information is read by the terminal,… and wherein the payment code is displayed along with a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time of a payment code expiration period
…wherein the payment code displayed on the payment device is updated from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance.
Ayoub teaches:
based on determining that a payment code is read by a payment processing device and a payment information is read by the terminal,… and wherein the payment …[transaction type of content] is displayed along with a countdown timer corresponding to the remaining time of a payment …[transaction type of content] expiration period ((Ayoub) in at least para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches the indicator may indicate type of specific content such as a time limit for a user to perform an action)
Both Van Os and Ayoub are directed toward transaction activity to be performed. Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand on the transaction data content received related to the transaction and user activity required for the transaction of Van Os to include the type of indicator as taught by expiration features as taught by Ayoub since Ayoub teaches the motivation of the generation of an indicator that may indicate to the user of the receiving device data or activity that is relevant to the transaction process including a time limit indicator displayed to the user where if the user does not permit specific content to be received or sent within the specified time limit the content may not be received after the time limit has expired where the time indicator fading out over the time limit until the time limit has expired and eventually disappearing off the display providing visual representation of time remaining to expiration.
Mossoba teaches:
based on determining that a payment code is read by a payment processing device and a payment information is read by the terminal, perform processing related to first settlement based on a first account …((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 5B, para 0020, para 0022, para 0051)
wherein an integrated balance based on the balance of the first account and the balance of the second account is displayed on the payment device ((Mossoba) in at least FIG. 4A; para 0048-0049 wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code choosing a card transaction limit for balance transfer , and wherein the payment code displayed on the payment device is updated from a first payment code to a second payment code for the first settlement by the integrated balance. ((Mossoba) in at least Fig. 4A-B wherein the prior art teaches generating combinatorial QR code; FIG. 5B; para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches generate graphical construct (payment code) including bank card, merchant information including identification information, and the user of the client device updates number of times using graphical construct generated, para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches generating graphical construct based on user inputs that includes bank card and merchant information, para 0035, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches generating a summary screen including the generated graphical construct, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches displaying status of online transactions as referenced in Fig. 5B; para 0044, para 0048); .
Both Van Os and Mossoba are directed toward applying mobile payment applications for secure transactions. Mossoba teaches the motivation of applying QR codes in transactions in order to store payment information computer readable code easily acquired and read by transaction devices so that time can be saved in transactions and reducing the amount of information the customer is required to type into a mobile payment application by the customer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the means of receiving payment and transaction related information of Van Os to include payment codes as taught by Mossoba since Mossoba teaches the motivation of applying QR codes in transactions in order to store payment information computer readable code easily acquired and read by transaction devices so that time can be saved in transactions and reducing the amount of information the customer is required to type into a mobile payment application by the customer.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al (Van Os) in view of US Pub No. 2014/0022183 A1 by Ayoub et al (Ayoub) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0273017 A1 by Mossoba et al (Mossoba) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,902,513 B1 by Hazan (Hazan)
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Van Os further discloses the limitations claim 15
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second account is an account of a business operator, and wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed by lending, from the second account, an amount corresponding to a shortfall in the balance of the first account.
Hazan teaches:
wherein the second account is an account of a business operator, and wherein the processing related to the first settlement is performed by lending, from the second account, an amount corresponding to a shortfall in the balance of the first account. ((Hazan) in at least Abstract; FIG. 4; Col 11 lines 19-56, Col 12 lines 3-17)
Both Van Os and Hazan are directed toward performing transactions using funds from different accounts. Hazan teaches the motivation of when at a POS transaction a payment account is determined to be insufficient the customer is allowed to select options to withdraws funds from another account to the payment account in order to make arrangements for the payment amount difference. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the application of multiple accounts for use in a transaction of Van Os to include funding a first account with a second account as taught by Hazan since Hazan teaches the motivation of when at a POS transaction a payment account is determined to be insufficient the customer is allowed to select options to withdraws funds from another account to the payment account in order to make arrangements for the payment amount difference.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2018/0336543 A1 by Van Os et al (Van Os), in view of US Pub No. 2020/0273017 A1 by Mossoba et al (Mossoba) in view of US Pub No. 2014/0022183 A1 by Ayoub et al. (Ayoub) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2020/0211016 A1 by Ju et al (Ju)
In reference to Claim 23:
The combination of Van Os, Ayoub and Mossoba discloses the limitations of independent claim 22. Van Os further discloses the limitations claim 23
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above), wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
Van Os does not explicitly teach:
transmit information related to a request for permission to use the second account for settlement, using a communication interface of the terminal, and wherein the processing related to the first settlement is executed based on the permission being received from the first user.
Ju teaches:
transmit information related to a request for permission to use the second account for settlement, using a communication interface of the terminal, and wherein the processing related to the first settlement is executed based on the permission being received from the first user.((Ju) in at least FIG. 5; para 0013, para 0015-0017, para 0019, para 0039, para 0045, para 0063, para 0067)
Both Van Os and Ju teach authorized use of other user accounts. Ju teaches the motivation of a user providing permission to use a funding source in order to allow a second user to use another users account. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the authorized use of other accounts of Van Os to include the permission for use of Ju since Ju teaches the motivation of a user providing permission to use a funding source in order to allow a second user to use another users account.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 11,354,651 B2 by Ortiz et al; US Patent No. 10,970,695 B2 by Finch et al
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695