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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the response filed on 12/31/2025.
Priority
No claim for priority has been made in this application.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (U.S. Patent 8965791) in view of Gra=Grassadonia (U.S. Patent Pub 20180005203 ) in further view of Tavakoli (U.S. Patent Pub 2014/0052613)
Re claim 1 & 10 & 19: Bell discloses:
A method for optimizing two-step electronic processing of transactions involving an initial and a final transaction amount, the method comprising: (see bell Figure 5-6)
identifying, based on transaction string data, a transaction message encoding a merchant identifier associated with a first merchant category, the transaction message corresponding to a request for a user’s payment of a first transaction amount for a transaction; parsing the transaction message among a plurality of received messages based on the identified merchant identifier; (see bell Figure 7 item 710 + Figure 1 + 5 item 512 + Fig 6 item 610-620 column 2 lines 25-50)
processing, by a transaction processing server, the first transaction amount using one or more logical operations stored in the transaction processing server or a database to compute a second transaction amount, wherein the one or more logical operations are derived from one or more user-specified tipping parameters associated with the merchant identifier; and (see bell Figure 6 item 620-640 + Figure 7 + Figure 1 + 5 item 520)
transmitting, in response to the transaction request message for the first transaction amount, a transaction validation response for the second amount, to a payment gateway associated with the transaction request for the first transaction amount. (see bell Figure 3 item 116 + 108 + Figure 6 item 630-640 + Figure 7 + Figure 1 + 5 item 530)
While examiner believes, Bell teaches the features of applicant, should the limitations be argued and for the sake of compact prosecution additional reference, Gra additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bell by adapting any features of Gra.
It is clear that one would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results. Specifically both Bell and Gra and Tav all relate to same subject area of payment systems with tip features for merchants.
Tav specifically teaches
A method for optimizing two-step electronic processing of transactions involving an initial and a final transaction amount, the method comprising: (see Tav Figure 1-5)
identifying, based on transaction string data, a transaction message encoding a merchant identifier associated with a first merchant category, the transaction message corresponding to a request for a user’s payment of a first transaction amount; (see Tav Figure 5 item 502)
processing, by a transaction processing server, the first transaction amount using one or more logical operations stored in the transaction processing server or a database to compute a second transaction amount, wherein the one or more logical operations are derived from one or more user-specified tipping parameters associated with the merchant identifier; and (see Tav Figure 5 item 505-506 + para 0048)
transmitting, in response to the transaction request message for the first transaction amount, a transaction validation response for the second amount, to a payment gateway associated with the transaction request for the first transaction amount. (see Tav Figure 5 item 503-504)
Gra specifically teaches:
A method for optimizing two-step electronic processing of transactions involving an initial and a final transaction amount, the method comprising: (see Gra Figure 1-2)
identifying, based on transaction string data, a transaction message encoding a merchant identifier associated with a first merchant category, the transaction message corresponding to a request for a user’s payment of a first transaction amount; (see Gra para 0023-0024 +0048 + Figure 1 item 102 + Figure 5 + figure 6 item 610-630 )
processing, by a transaction processing server, the first transaction amount with one or more logical operations to compute a second transaction amount, wherein the one or more logical operations are derived from one or more user-specified tipping parameters associated with the merchant identifier; and (see Gra Figure 2 item 230-240 + Figure 5 + figure 6 item 630-640)
transmitting, in response to the transaction request message for the first transaction amount, a transaction validation response for the second amount, to a payment gateway associated with the transaction request for the first transaction amount. (see Gra Figure 1 item 103 + Figure 2 item 240-245 + Figure 5 + figure 6 item 630-640)
Re claim 2 & 11 & 20: see claim 1 +
wherein a computation of the second transaction amount comprises: calculating a gratuity amount based on, the merchant identifier, the first transaction amount and the one or more user-specified tipping parameters associated with the merchant identifier, and increasing the first transaction amount by the gratuity amount calculated. (see bell Figure 6 item 620-640 + Figure 7 + Figure 1 + 5 item 520 + Gra Figure 2 item 230-240 + Figure 5 + figure 6 item 630-640)
Re claim 3 & 12: see claim 1 +
wherein the one or more logical operations are selected from a set of logical operations associated a user payment account, and where in the user-specific tipping parameters are specific to the merchant identifier wherein processing the first transaction amount comprises: identifying, by the transaction processing server, the one or more logical operations in response to the transaction message by matching the merchant identifier in the transaction message to a merchant identifier associated with the one or more logical operations; and determining, by the transaction processing server, the second transaction amount using the first transaction amount and the identified one or more logical operations. (see bell Figure 3 item 102 + Gra Figure 1 item 115)
Re claim 4 & 13: see claim 1 +
wherein the set of logical operations is accessible, by a process associated with the computation of the second transaction amount, via one or more Application Programming Interface (API) calls. (see bell Figure 3 item 102 + Gra para 0033 + Figure 1 item 115)
Re claim 5 & 14: see claim 1 +
wherein the one or more user-specified tipping parameters are inputted electronically via a modified user interface, the modified user interface being implemented as one or more of a payment application interface stored on a user mobile device or a web interface associated with a user payment account. (see bell Figure 3 item 102 + Gra Fig 5 + Figure 1 item 115)
Re claim 6 & 15: see claim 1 +
further comprising transmitting a notification message, via the modified user interface, prompting for a user confirmation of the second transaction amount, prior to generating the transaction validation response for the second transaction amount. (see bell Figure 3 item 102 + Gra Fig 5 + Figure 1 item 115)
Re claim 7 & 16: see claim 1 +
wherein the first merchant category correspond to a user-provided listing of merchant identifiers associated with one or more user-specified tipping parameters. (see bell Figure 3 item 102 + Gra claim 1 + para 0024 Figure 5)
Re claim 8 & 17: see claim 1 +
further comprising determining a length of stay, for a user, at a service location of a merchant matching the first merchant category, the length of stay being determined based on real-time navigation and location data retrieved from one or more navigation-related applications running on a mobile device of the user. (see bell column 9 line 6-48 + claim 11 + Figure 3 item 102 + Gra claim 1 + para 0024 Figure 5)
Re claim 9 & 18: see claim 1 +
further comprising increasing the second transaction amount in proportion to the length of stay at the service location of the merchant. . (see bell Figure 6 item 620-640 + Figure 7 + Figure 1 + 5 item 520 + Gra Figure 2 item 230-240 + Figure 5 + figure 6 item 630-640)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, and respect to Claim 1 the Applicant argued primary that prior art did not teach user-specified versus merchant-specified tip options.
The Examiner refutes the argument made by the Applicant and draws the attention to Bell, Gra and Tav. Specificially Bell Figure 6 item 620-640 + Figure 7 + Figure 1 + 5 item 520 + Gra Figure 2 item 230-240 + Figure 5 + figure 6 item 630-640 and Tav Figure 5 item 505-506. It should be noted that Tav Tav Figure 5 item 505-506 and in particular para 0048 “based on user-specific merchant criteria”. Additional Bell and Gra teach the elements argued by applicant specifically the tipping feature. The examiner would also like to note the both prior art and applicant have tipping parameters, who or how these tipping parameters are selected is simply a design feature and hold little patentable weight. These reference combined together teach the elements of the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mimassi, U.S. Patent Pub 20210209523, discloses a method for end-to-end contactless dining experience and management. With “length of stay” para 101.
OLENOSKI et al., U.S. Patent Pub 20190220838, teaches a system for managing merchandising cards may include one or more memory devices storing instructions and one or more processors configured to acquire, from a device over a network, a plurality of locations associated with the device, the device locations being acquired at different instances in time within a predetermined period of time. Additionally, the processor may be configured to calculate a merchant confidence rating for a merchant using the device locations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693