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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the instant application. Claims 5, 14, and 19 have been cancelled. Claim 22 has been added. Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended. The rejection of the aforementioned claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, and finds said arguments to be persuasive.
As Applicant asserts on page 2 of Arguments as submitted on September 27, 2024 “One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transaction identifier indicating the double tap data transfer would provide an advantage in the technical field of electronic transactions over the approaches (such as described in Smets) that utilize or depend on a mobile device ID. Since the mobile device ID does not indicate a particular transaction, there could be an error in identifying a transaction to which the mobile device ID is to be applicated, such as when a second transaction is initiated when a first transaction is still in process. Including the transaction identifier that indicates the double tap data transfer allows a device to correctly identify a transaction, thereby improving the technical field of electronic transactions.
For step 2B, MPEP 2106.05 notes that "Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include ... Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The undersigned respectfully submits that having the transaction identifier indicate the double tap data transfer is other than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. Further, the transaction identifier indicating the double tap data transfer confines the claim to the particular useful application of double tap data transfers.” The examiner agrees. The usage of a mobile device, data receiving device, and proximity sensors are integral to the performance of the method as claimed, and the wireless transfer of data cannot be performed without the use of said devices, making the usage of such devices more than insignificant, extra solution activity. For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered, and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record is hereby withdrawn.
The rejection of the pending claims in view of non-statutory double patenting are hereby maintained.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4,6-13, 15-18, and 20-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/865,276. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to the system and method of effecting a payment using double tap data transfer and approximation of data based on user proximity.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights