DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has: amended claims 1 and 16; and cancelled claim 26. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 21-25 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recites steps/limitations performed by a second electronic device and a transaction server (e.g., the signed offline transaction string is automatically transmitted from the second electronic device to the transaction server, in response to receiving the signed offline transaction string, the transaction server validates the signed offline transaction string using the public key for the first user, etc.). Since claim 16 is a device claim that only comprises the first electronic device, any steps/limitations performed by the second electronic device or the transaction server would be outside the scope of claim 16. Accordingly, claim 16 is significantly broader than the corresponding method claim (i.e., claim 1). Claim 17 corrects/remedies this issue by indicating that the second electronic device and the transaction server are now part of the claimed invention. Applicant should consider whether they want to cancel claim 17 and make independent claim 16 a system claim comprising the first electronic device, second electronic device and the transaction server in order to give all of the limitations in claim 16 patentable weight.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a first electronic device” as in “a first electronic device according to claim 16.” As best understood, there is only a single “first electronic device.” Accordingly, claim 17 should be amended to recite “the first electronic device according to claim 16,” since the “first electronic device” was already introduced in independent claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “A computer implemented method for performing an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds between a first user operating a first electronic device and a second user operating a second electronic device when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network connection with a transaction server […].” Claim 1 also recites “wherein, subsequent to the validating at the second electronic device and in response to the second electronic device establishing communication with the transaction server at a later time, the method further comprises: […] (ii) validating, at the transaction server and in response to receiving the signed offline transaction string, the signed offline transaction […], (iii) updating, using the transaction server, a balance associated with the first user […], and (iv) transferring, using the transaction server, the amount of funds to the second user.” Claim 1 is unclear because the preamble indicates that the method is for performing an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds when neither
the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network
connection with a transaction server, however some parts of the method (e.g., steps i-iv) are explicitly/clearly performed while the second device is in communication with the transaction server (i.e., is online). In particular, the transaction server only validates the signed offline transaction string once the second device establishes communication. As best understood, this validation by the server is needed to “permit” the offline transaction (i.e., “permit a transfer of funds”). Additionally, the transfer of funds does not appear to be performed while the second device is offline. Rather, the transaction server only transfers the funds once the second device establishes communication with the transaction server. In view of these online and offline steps, it is unclear what steps are part of the “offline transaction” (i.e., it is unclear what specific steps must be performed offline) and what steps “permit a transfer of funds.”
As best understood, steps i-iv are required to be performed when the device(s) is/are online, accordingly it is assumed, based on the preamble, that the remainder of the limitations in claim 1 are performed when the first and second devices are offline (e.g., not connected to the transaction server). It is also understood that the transfer of funds is not actually performed, nor fully permitted/validated, when the first and second devices are “offline”, rather the transfer is only permitted and completed by the transaction server once the second device establishes communication with the transaction server (i.e., goes online). In order to further prosecution, the claim(s) have been interpreted in this manner.
Independent claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations and contains the same lack of clarity issues. Accordingly, claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons and rational explained above. Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 21-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to claim 1 or 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (WO 2015/148850 A1) (hereinafter "Jiang") in view of Rodrigues et al. (US 2018/0232732 A1) (hereinafter “Rodrigues”).
Regarding Claims 1, 16 and 17 : Jiang discloses:
Claim 1: A computer implemented method for performing an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds between a first user operating a first electronic device (user device 110) and a second user operating a second electronic device (merchant device 120) when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network connection with a transaction server, the first electronic device storing a private key (account certificate private key 112) and a locally maintained balance for the first user and the second electronic device storing a public key for the first user corresponding to the private key (account certificate public key 112a), (See in [0032], [0040]) wherein the method comprises:
Claim 16: A first electronic device (a user computing device 110) operated by a first user and adapted to perform an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds to a second electronic device (a merchant computing device 120) operated by a second user when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network connection with a transaction server (account management system 130), the first electronic device storing a private key (account certificate private key 112) and a locally maintained balance for the first user and the second electronic device storing a public key for the first user corresponding to the private key (account certificate public key 112a), (Fig. 1, See in Jiang [0024], [0032], [0040]) wherein the first electronic device is adapted to:
Claim 17: A computer system (offline payment system) comprising (Fig. 1 item 100, see in Jiang [0024]):
a first electronic device (a user computing device 110) according to claim 16 (Fig. 1 item 110, see in Jiang [0024]),
the second electronic device (a merchant computing device 120), the second electronic device being different from the first electronic device, (Fig. 1 item 120, see in Jiang [0024]) and
the transaction server (account management system 130). (Fig. 1 item 130, see in Jiang [0024])
selecting, at the first electronic device, an amount of funds to be transferred, (block 250, 610-620, See in [0096]-[0099] and in Figures 2-3 and 6-7)
receiving, at the first electronic device, an identity of the first user, (block 350-360, See in [0059] and [0061] and in Figures 2-3 and 6-7)
receiving, at the first electronic device, an indicator (up-to-date balance certificate) of the transaction server (account management system 130) adapted to transfer the selected amount, (block 210-220, See in [0049]-[0050] and in Figures 2-3 and 6-7)
forming, at the first electronic device, an offline transaction string (a response to payment request) including at least the selected amount (payment request amount), the identity of the first user (an identification of the user), and the indicator (up-to-date balance certificate) of the transaction server, (block 620, block 650, see in [0099-0101])
signing, at the first electronic device, at least a portion of the offline transaction string (e.g., sign the withdrawal record, which is in the response to payment request) using the private key to form a signed offline transaction string, (block 630, see in [0100])
providing the signed offline transaction string to the second electronic device without involving the transaction server, (block 650, see in [0101]) and
validating, at the second electronic device, the signed offline transaction string using the public key to authenticate the first user and to verify the offline transaction, (block 710-720, see in [0104]-[0106])
wherein, subsequent to the validating at the second electronic device and in response to the second electronic device establishing communication with the transaction server at a later time (block 260-270, block 810-820, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, see Jiang in [0120], [0122]), the method further comprises:
automatically transmitting, by the second electronic device (by the merchant device 120), the signed offline transaction string (the signed withdrawal record) to the transaction server (to the account management system), (block 840, see Jiang in [0124])
validating, at the transaction server (at the account management system 130) and in response to receiving the signed offline transaction string (in response to receiving the signed withdrawal record), the signed offline transaction string using the public key for the first user (block 270, block 860, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, see Jiang [0126]),
updating, using the transaction server (the account management system 130), a balance associated with the first user by deducting the amount of funds (records the withdrawal record in the user's account management system 130 account) based on the validated signed offline transaction string (based on the withdrawal record verification passing, which includes verifying the identity of the user using the public key) and corresponding to the selected amount reserved in the locally maintained balance, (corresponding to the amount in the withdrawal record) (block 860, Fig. 8, see Jiang in [0128])
wherein the updating [is] performed without the transaction server (without the account management system) having locked the amount of funds (locked the requested payment amount) prior to receiving the signed offline transaction string from the second electronic device (prior to receiving the signed withdrawal record from the merchant device 120) (block 220, Fig. 2, Fig. 4 – particularly block 410 following the “No” path to block 450, see Jiang in [0076-0080], [0085-0087]. Note that in Jiang, while some, or all, funds could be locked, the locking of the funds does not necessarily pertain to “the requested payment amount.” See e.g., Jiang [0076-0080], [0085-0087]. That is, while Jiang may lock and/or unlock certain funds (e.g., lock funds based on a minimum account threshold), in some example embodiments Jiang does not lock “the amount of funds” (i.e., the funds needed/requested for the offline transaction) prior to receiving the signed withdrawal record from the merchant device. In fact, Jiang may not lock any funds. See e.g., Jiang [0077] which states “If no portion of the balance of funds are locked, the method 450 proceeds to block 450 in Figure 4.”).
Jiang discloses where the user device requests an up-to-date balance certificate prior to conducting an offline financial transaction. Jiang Block 220, Block 490, Jiang [0050], [0089-0092]. The balance certificate comprises an amount of funds available for an offline transaction. Jiang [0089]. Jiang also discloses where the transaction server (i.e., account management system 130) records the withdrawal of funds from the user’s account subsequent to the validating at the second electronic device and in response to the second electronic device establishing communication with the transaction server at a later time. Jiang Block 860, [0128]. However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose: reserving, at the first electronic device, the selected amount in the locally maintained balance; transferring, using the transaction server, the amount of funds to the second user; or wherein the transferring [is] performed without the transaction server having locked the amount of funds prior to receiving the transaction string from the second electronic device.
Rodrigues, on the other hand, who is also directed to performing offline transactions teaches:
reserving, at the first electronic device (payer’s client device), the selected amount in the locally maintained balance (by updating the payer’s funds to reflect the new level of available funds based on the previous level of funds, the transaction amount and any optional fees) (step 115 in Fig. 1, Fig. 6A step 615, see Rodrigues in [0171], [0245], [0257]),
wherein, subsequent to [a validation] (e.g., validating an authentication code, for example at step 710) at the second electronic device (at the payee client device) and in response to the second electronic device establishing communication with the transaction server at a later time (once the payee client device returns to an online state and forwards the transaction confirmation to the payment server, for example at step 650 or 754), transferring (crediting, for example at step 680 or 766), using the transaction server (payment server), the amount of funds to the second user (to the account of the payee) (see Rodrigues in [0181], [0183]; [0248-0249], [0253]; [0262-0263]),
wherein the updating (debiting of the payer) and transferring (crediting of the payee) [is] performed without the transaction server (payment server) having locked the amount of funds (transaction amount) prior to receiving the transaction string (prior to receiving transaction details (e.g., the transaction confirmation)) from the second electronic device (from the payee device) (see Rodrigues in [0248-0249]; [0262-0263]. Note the payer and payee client devices are offline prior to the debiting and crediting process, accordingly the transaction server is not contacted (e.g., contacted to lock funds)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rodrigues into Jiang’s method of conducting an offline transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to have the payer’s mobile wallet application indicate a reduced balance of funds reflecting the amount of funds transferred as part of the transaction (Rodrigues [0171]). Additionally, the features taught by Rodrigues further help to allow transactions to be performed when the client devices involved are unable to communicate with the payment processing devices, for example, due to communications network availability issues or the like (Rodrigues [0165]).
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses wherein the signed offline transaction string is received at the second electronic device from the first electronic device using direct communication between the first and the second electronic device (See Jiang in [0101]).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on a payment condition (See Jiang in [0080] and [0089]).
Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 6. Jiang further discloses wherein the payment condition is time-based (See Jiang in [0080] “a time-based rule for locking or unlocking a portion of the balance of funds” and [0089] “the balance certificate 113 is limited by time”).
Regarding Claim 8: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang discloses the use of public and private keys in order to generate and validate digital signatures. See e.g., Jiang [0040], [0100]. However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on a preselected encryption scheme.
Rodrigues, on the other hand, further teaches wherein the offline the transaction string (the transaction details (e.g., the transaction confirmation)) is further formed based on a preselected encryption scheme (based on encryption scheme using a secret key) (See Rodrigues in [0190-0192]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rodrigues into Jiang’s method of conducting an offline transaction which uses public and private keys in order to generate and validate digital signatures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow a payment processing device to decrypt a transaction request and transaction confirmation, using the private key of the payment processing device public/private key pair, before comparing the confirmation and request transaction details to ensure these match (Rodrigues [0195]).
Regarding Claim 10: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on an identity of the second user (See Jiang in [0099] “an identification of the merchant or merchant device 120”).
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 11. Jiang further discloses wherein the identity of the first user is validated at the transaction server using the public key for the first user (see Jiang in [0124]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 13: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 11. Jiang further discloses wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on a payment condition (e.g., a condition that the transaction must be completed prior to the balance certificate expiring), and wherein the step of transferring the amount of funds to the second user is only performed if the payment condition is fulfilled (which is indicated by the balance certificate being deemed valid and/or by the user device 110 determining that the payment transaction meets the rules thus allowing the transaction to proceed) (see Jiang in [0080]; [0089]; [0100] “the user device 110 reviewed any rules or limitations placed on the amount of funds available for an offline payment transaction and determines if the payment transaction meets those rules”; [0124]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 15: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 11. Jiang further discloses wherein the identity of the first user is a verifiable identity (See Jiang in [0106]).
Regarding Claim 22: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses wherein the offline transaction string includes a condition specifying a time period within which the transaction must be submitted to the transaction server. (See Jiang in at least [0080] “balance certificate 113 is valid for only a single transaction or for only a short amount of time (for example, long enough to only complete one offline transaction)”; [0082] “If the account management system 130 determines there is a time-based rule for locking or unlocking a portion of the balance of funds, the method 450 proceeds to block 550 in Figure 5. In block 550, the account management system 130 determines the available funds for the pre-defined time period.”; [0100] “the user device 110 reviewed any rules or limitations placed on the amount of funds available for an offline payment transaction and determines if the payment transaction meets those rules”;)
Regarding Claim 23: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the transaction server rejects the signed offline transaction string if received after expiration of a validity condition included in the signed offline transaction string. (See Jiang in [0080] “balance certificate 113 is valid for only a single transaction or for only a short amount of time (for example, long enough to only complete one offline transaction). After a single offline payment transaction is completed, or after the expiration of the time available for the balance certificate 113, the user is required to request a new up-to-date balance certificate 113.”; [0127] “If the withdrawal record verification fails, the method 270 proceeds to block 870 in Figure 8. In block 870, the offline payment transaction is rejected. In an example embodiment, the account management system 130 transmits a notification of the rejected transaction to the merchant device 120”)
Regarding Claim 24: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses detecting, at the first electronic device, that the first electronic device does not possess the network connection (See Jiang in [0053-0054]).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose initiating the transaction in an offline mode based on the detection.
Rodrigues, on the other hand, further teaches detecting (determining), at the first electronic device (at the payer client device), that the first electronic device does not possess the network connection (is not online), and initiating the transaction (initiating step 708) in an offline mode based on the detection (See in Rodrigues [0251-0252]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rodrigues into Jiang’s method of conducting an offline transaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow transactions to be performed when the client devices involved are unable to communicate with the payment processing devices, for example, due to communications network availability issues or the like (Rodrigues [0165]).
Claims 4-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Rodrigues, as applied above, and further in view of Arora (US 2018/0276663 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses a need for the first device (110) and the second device (120) to communicate directly when there is not a network connection. See e.g., Jiang [0020], [0025]. Jiang indicates that various short range communication channels, and/or systems, could be used to exchange signals/data. Jiang [0025]. However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose forming a graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string, and printing the graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string.
Arora, on the other hand, teaches forming a graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string, and printing the graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string (See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate forming a graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string, and printing the graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string, as taught/suggested by Arora, into Jiang’s method of communicating offline via short range communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to transfer transaction details between devices via a machine-readable code (Arora [0022], [0050]).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Jiang, Rodrigues and Arora discloses the method of claim 4. Jiang does not disclose but Arora further teaches wherein the graphical representation is a barcode (See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the graphical representation is a barcode, as taught/suggested by Arora, into Jiang’s method of communicating offline via short range communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to transfer transaction details between devices via a machine-readable code (Arora [0022], [0050]).
Regarding Claim 21: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang further discloses a need for the first device (110) and the second device (120) to communicate directly when there is not a network connection. See e.g., Jiang [0020], [0025]. Jiang indicates that various short range communication channels, and/or systems, could be used to exchange signals/data. Jiang [0025]. However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the signed offline transaction string is encoded in a machine-readable format selected from a QR code, NFC payload, or short-range wireless protocol transmission.
Arora, on the other hand, teaches wherein the signed offline transaction string is encoded in a machine-readable format selected from a QR code, NFC payload, or short-range wireless protocol transmission (See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the signed offline transaction string is encoded in a machine-readable format selected from a QR code, NFC payload, or short-range wireless protocol transmission, as taught/suggested by Arora, into Jiang’s method of communicating offline via short range communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to transfer transaction details between devices via a machine-readable code (Arora [0022], [0050]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Rodrigues, as applied above, and further in view of Bleikertz et al. (US 2020/0128022 A1) (hereinafter “Bleikertz”).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 8. Jiang discloses the use of public and private keys in order to generate and validate digital signatures. See e.g., Jiang [0040], [0100]. As indicated above, Rodrigues teaches wherein the offline the transaction string (the transaction details (e.g., the transaction confirmation)) is further formed based on a preselected encryption scheme (based on encryption scheme using a secret key) (See Rodrigues in [0190-0192]). However, the combination of Jiang and Rodrigues does not explicitly disclose wherein the preselected encryption scheme is based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC).
Bleikertz, on the other hand, teaches wherein the preselected encryption scheme is based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) (See Bleikertz in [0107] “symmetric ( e.g., Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)), asymmetric encryption (e.g., RSA, elliptic curve, etc.), or integrated encryption (e.g., ECIES) can be utilized in encrypting the partially encrypted message and submitting the proposed transaction 140, and can be utilized in all transactions disclosed herein”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bleikertz into Jiang’s method of conducting an offline transaction which uses public and private keys in order to generate and validate digital signatures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to send a cryptographically protected message to one or more recipient nodes thereby preserving privacy from at least one external node (Bleikertz [0107]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Rodrigues, as applied above, and further in view of Kramer et al. US 6,324,525 (hereinafter "Kramer").
Regarding Claim 25: The combination of Jiang and Rodrigues discloses the method of claim 1. Jiang discloses where the signed offline transaction string is processed (e.g., by recording the withdrawal record in the user's account management system 130 account). See e.g., Jiang [0128], Fig. 8 block 860. However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose determining, at the transaction server, whether the signed offline transaction string has previously been processed or corresponds to already transferred funds.
Kramer, on the other hand, teaches determining, at the transaction server (at the Gateway), whether the signed offline transaction string (first time processing) has previously been processed or corresponds to already transferred funds (has already been performed) (See Kramer in Col. 112 lines 34-41; Col. 121 line 59 – Col. 123 line 4; Fig. 57 step 5710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kramer into Jiang’s method of recording the withdrawal record in the user's account management system account. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to prevent successive performance of the same processing steps (Kramer Col. 123 lines 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection have been considered and were found to be persuasive. Amendment, pp. 9-17. Examiner contends that the claim(s) continue to recite one or more abstract ideas (e.g., offline transaction processing), however Examiner agrees with applicant’s remarks (particularly on pages 10-12 of the amendment) indicating that “even if the present claims recite an "abstract
idea" […], the claims contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a "practical application" of the abstract idea and, thus, are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. […] the claims sufficiently integrate any such abstract concept to a practical application by reciting extensive details about the computer-based operations that are required to perform the contemplated offline transaction.” Amendment, p. 10. In view of applicant’s remarks and the current claim amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, discloses techniques for "performing an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds between a first user operating a first electronic device and a second user operating a second electronic device when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network connection with a transaction server," wherein "the transaction server" has not "locked the amount of funds prior to receiving [a] signed offline transaction string from the second electronic device" as provided for by independent claim 1 (emphases added by applicant). Amendment, pp. 18-20. Applicant alleges that, in Jiang, a user must first request and lock funds in their account management system. Amendment at p. 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that, in Jiang, some or all funds could be locked. However, it is important to note that the locking of the funds does not necessarily pertain to “the requested payment amount.” See e.g., Jiang [0076-0080], [0085-0087]. That is, while Jiang may lock and/or unlock certain funds (e.g., lock funds based on a minimum account threshold), in some example embodiments Jiang does not lock “the amount of funds” (i.e., the funds needed/requested for the offline transaction) prior to receiving the signed withdrawal record from the merchant device. In fact, Jiang may not lock any funds. See e.g., Jiang [0077] which states “If no portion of the balance of funds are locked, the method 450 proceeds to block 450 in Figure 4.” Examiner contends that Jiang only requires that the user obtain an available balance, in the form of a balance certificate, prior to conducting an offline transaction. See Jiang Fig. 2 steps 220 and 230; [0091-0096]. Once the user has the balance certificate, no further contact is needed with the account management system, accordingly the entire transaction/exchange between the user and the merchant device can be performed offline. It is also important to note that the account management system does not need to be contacted prior to each transaction. For example, Jiang indicates that the balance certificate could be valid for a pre-defined number of offline purchase transactions. Jiang [0089].
Applicant argues that, in contrast to Jiang, the present claims specifically state that the "transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds" before the transaction is completed between the two user devices (emphasis added by applicant). Amendment, p. 20. This argument is also unpersuasive for at least two reasons. First, the claimed invention no longer requires that the transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction. This feature was removed in the most recent amendment. Second, as explained above, Jiang does not require “the amount of funds” (i.e., the amount of the transaction), or any amount, to be locked prior to the offline transaction. While some embodiments in Jiang do lock funds, it is not a requirement to lock “the amount of funds” prior to the transaction.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Leite Netto et al. (US 2018/0096348 A1) discloses a method for payment authorization on offline mobile devices with irreversibility or "non-repudiation" assurance, a method which was particularly developed for authentication of payments transactions carried out by the consumer/payer that uses mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets or other devices available with enough processing capacity to execute encryption algorithms and which may be used for on-site payment authorizations, or otherwise, using financial resources or credit limits of the holder of said mobile device. Leite Netto [0001].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights