DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 07/20/2022 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-14 are rejected herein. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Response to Remarks
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 and finds said arguments to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record is found to be moot in view of the grounds of rejection provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwight et al (US 2012/0166311) in view of Lakshmanan et al(US 2015/0310431), further in view of Fordyce III (US 2010/0274719).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a system of deferred real-time payments (RTPs), comprising: a deferred payment system, comprising a processor to: receive, from a merchant processor, a request message comprising a full amount of a deferred fulfillment order, a merchant identifier that identifies a merchant, a processor identifier, a consumer alias, and an order type that specifies that payment of the full amount is to be deferred (see at least paragraph [0038]to Dwight et al); validate the merchant processor based on a digital certificate associated with the processor identifier (see at least paragraph [0059]to Dwight et al) ; generate an order identifier that is stored in association with the request message and is stored with a deferred flag indicating that the payment of the full amount is to be deferred based on the order type received in the request message; identify a consumer bank and a consumer identifier based on the consumer alias (see at least paragraph [0029]to Dwight et al); transmit, to the consumer bank, a message comprising the full amount, the consumer alias, the consumer identifier, and an indication that the full amount is to be deferred (see at least paragraph [0038]to Dwight et al); receive a message response from the consumer bank, the message response indicating that the full amount is approved or declined, wherein the full amount is not paid by the consumer bank; and transmit the message response and the order identifier to the merchant processor (see at least paragraphs [0050]-[0051]to Dwight et al).
Dwight et al does not appear to explicitly disclose a digital certificate that includes a public key associated with the merchant processor, data digitally signed with a private key corresponding to the public key;
Verify[ing] the digitally signed data of the request message using the public key contained in the digital certificate; and
wherein the validation mitigates security threats associated with the RTP networks through trusted and secure communication between the merchant processor and the deferred payment system.
However, Lakshmanan et al discloses a system and method for secure payments using a mobile wallet application, further comprising a digital certificate that includes a public key associated with the merchant processor (see at least paragraph [0028] to Lakshmanan et al), data digitally signed with a private key corresponding to the public key (see at least paragraph [0024] to Lakshmanan et al);
Verify[ing] the digitally signed data of the request message using the public key contained in the digital certificate (see at least paragraph [0027] to Lakshmanan et al); and
wherein the validation mitigates security threats associated with the RTP networks through trusted and secure communication between the merchant processor and the deferred payment system (see at least paragraph [0045] to Lakshmanan et al).
The previously applied prior art of record does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein until the deferred fulfillment order has been fulfilled such that the merchant is not paid the full amount at the time of deferral.
However, Fordyce III discloses delayed settlement transaction system and methods, wherein until the deferred fulfillment order has been fulfilled such that the merchant is not paid the full amount at the time of deferral (see at least paragraph [0044] to Fordyce III, wherein after a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 30 days), which is predetermined by the merchant 22 and/or acquirer 24 and/or issuer 26, the payment processing organization 30 may settle the transaction with the merchant 22 and/or acquirer 24 and issuer 26 (step 11). Other predetermined amounts of time can be used, for example, from 2-90 days. Alternatively, predetermined dates may be used, such as the end of every month. After the predetermined period of time has expired, the transactions funds may be deposited with the merchant 22).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method of deferred payment and selective funding and payments, as disclosed by Dwight et al and the system and method of secure payments using a mobile wallet application, as taught by Lakshmanan et al, and further in view of the delayed settlement transactions system and method as taught by Fordyce III, in order to provide a secure means for the customer to make payments via a credit or debit card at both brick-and-mortar and online merchants, without being forced to entrust their sensitive financial information to a merchant or exposing themselves to the security vulnerabilities intrinsic to storing the financial information on the cloud (see at least paragraph [0010] to Lakshmanan et al) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to: receive, from the merchant processor, a settlement request comprising the order identifier, a merchant identifier, a settlement amount, and an order closure flag that indicates whether or not to permit further settlement requests for the order identifier; validate the merchant processor based on the digital certificate (see at least paragraph [0018]to Dwight et al); identify, based on the merchant identifier, a settlement account identifier that identifies a settlement account to which to make a real-time payment (RTP) from a consumer account (see at least paragraph [0066]to Dwight et al); transmit, to the consumer bank, a settlement message comprising the settlement account identifier, the settlement amount, and the order identifier (see at least paragraph [0018]to Dwight et al); receive, from the consumer bank, a payment confirmation message comprising the order identifier and a reference number from a real-time payment (RTP) network that transfers funds from the consumer account to the settlement account in real-time; and transmit, to the merchant processor, a payment notification based on the payment confirmation message (see at least paragraph [0051]to Dwight et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the settlement amount is equal to the full amount and wherein the order closure flag comprises an indication that the full amount is satisfied see at least paragraph [0014]to Dwight et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the settlement amount is less than the full amount, and wherein the processor is further programmed to: receive, from the merchant processor, a second settlement request comprising the order identifier, the merchant identifier, a second settlement amount, and the order closure flag that indicates whether or not to permit further settlement requests for the order identifier (see at least paragraph [0018]to
Dwight et al); validate the merchant processor based on the digital certificate; identify, based on the merchant identifier, the settlement account identifier that identifies the settlement account to which to make the real-time payment (RTP) from the consumer account see at least paragraph [0059]to
Dwight et al); transmit, to the consumer bank, a second settlement message comprising the settlement account identifier, the settlement amount, and the order identifier see at least paragraph [0029]to Dwight et al); receive, from the consumer bank, a second payment confirmation message comprising the order identifier and a second reference number from the RTP network that transfers funds from the consumer account to the settlement account; and transmit, to the merchant processor, a second payment notification based on the second payment confirmation message see at least paragraph [0040]to Dwight et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to: receive, from the merchant processor, a request to register to use the system; and provide the digital certificate to the merchant processor (see at least paragraph [0054] to Dwight et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further programmed to store the digital certificate in association with the merchant processor (see at least paragraph [0054] to Dwight et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to: receive, from a consumer, a request to register to use the system, the request comprising the consumer identifier, the consumer alias, and the consumer bank of the consumer, the consumer identifier being assigned by the consumer bank; and store the consumer alias in association with the consumer bank and the consumer identifier, the stored consumer alias being used to identify the consumer identifier without use of the consumer identifier (see at least paragraph [0029] to Dwight et al).
Claims 8-14 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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