DETAILED ACTION
The following NON- FINAL Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on July 16, 2026 for application 17907932
Acknowledgements
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-17 and 21 have been rejected and examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
In response to the Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the rejection under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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 of this title, 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, 3-6, 8-11, 13-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al. (US 2017/0364910 A1) in view of Brendell et al. (US 2013/0054413 A1) in view of Kumnick et al. (US 9,846,878 B2) and in further view of Howard (US 11,068,899 B2).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Malhotra discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by the transfer application on the first user device [from the marketplace application], the digital tag associated with the second user and a transaction amount, wherein the transfer application is associated with a first user account of the first user, wherein the digital tag is a unique digital data string that is linked to a payment credential of the second user associated with a second user account of the second user; (¶0033, ¶0035 “service provider (first user device) is in communication with gateway computer 306 (digital tag computer)”, now in some embodiments, the gateway computer 306 will refer to a first user device such as in ¶0068, ¶0070, ¶0086 “merchant will be the first user device that receives the alias from the user, ¶0088, ¶0094, ¶0103)
transmitting, by the transfer application to a digital tag computer, the digital tag associated with the second user and resolving the digital tag associated with the second user; (¶0032 “digital tag computer is the gateway computer 306 that is connected to alias directory which translates beneficiary/recipient's alias into destination account information”, ¶0035, In some embodiments show in Fig. 5, gateway computer will refer to as the first user device that is connected to a storage device which is the digital tag computer”, ¶0073 “the alias is translated at the alia directory 314”, ¶0086 “merchant sends the alias to get translated via the payment network's API”), ¶0089, ¶0095, ¶0105, ¶0106)
receiving, by the transfer application from the digital tag computer, the payment credential of the second user including a primary account number or a token linked to the digital tag and identifying a second user account, wherein the digital tag is replaced with the primary account number or the token prior to generating an authorization request message for the transaction amount on the first user device of the first user, wherein the authorization request message seeks authorization to transfer the transaction amount from the first user account of the first user to the second user account of the second user; (¶0074, ¶0089)
transmitting, by the transfer application to a transport computer, the push transfer message requesting approval of the transaction amount to be processed using the primary account number or the token of the second user (¶0091)
Malhotra does not disclose: receiving, on a first user device, [a transaction amount].
Brendell however discloses: receiving, on a first user device, [a transaction amount] (¶0023 “the consumer receives an RFID tag that comprises a unique identifier a transaction identifier, and transaction information such as the amount due and merchant information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Malhotra to include “receiving, on a first user device, [a transaction amount]”, as disclosed in Brendell, in order to provide a contactless payment system for merchant transactions (see Brendell abstract).
The combination of Malhotra and Brendell does not disclose generating, by the transfer application, the authorization request message in form of a push transfer message comprising the transaction amount and the primary account number or token associated with the second user.
Kumnick however discloses:
generating, by the transfer application, the authorization request message in form of a push transfer message comprising the transaction amount and the primary account number or token associated with the second user; (Col. 16 lines 47-51, Col. 16 lines 59-67 “transaction information consists of any information associated with a current transaction, such as the transaction amount, merchant identifier, merchant location, acquirer bank identification number (BIN), card acceptor ID, etc. as well as any other information that may be utilized in determining whether to identify and/or authorize a transaction”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Brendell to include “generating, by the transfer application, the authorization request message in form of a push transfer message comprising the transaction amount and the primary account number or token associated with the second user”, as disclosed in Kumnick, in order to provide tokens that may be used to make a consumer's payment account information more secure without interfering with a merchant's programs (see Kumnick Col. 23 lines 7-21).
The combination of Malhotra, Brendell and Kumnick does not disclose: initiating, by a marketplace application on a first user device of a first user, a transaction with a second user; receiving, on the marketplace application, on the first user device, a selection of a transfer application on the first user device to complete the transaction, wherein the selection of the transfer application launches the transfer application on the first user device; and receiving, by the marketplace application on the first user device, a digital tag associated with a second user from a second user device via a short range communication between the first user device and the second user device
Howard however discloses:
initiating, by a marketplace application on a first user device (‘e-wallet application may be installed on the communication device 108’ or ‘the aggregation module 124 of the communication device 108 may be implemented as an application installed on, and executed from, the communication device 108’) of a first user, a transaction with a second user (Col. 6 line 62-Col. 7 line 3, Col. 7 lines 49-63, Col. 8 lines 60- Col. 9 line 5)
receiving, on the marketplace application, on the first user device, a selection of a transfer application on the first user device to complete the transaction, wherein the selection of the transfer application launches the transfer application on the first user device (Col. 6 line 62-Col. 7 line 3, Col. 8 lines 60- Col. 9 line 9, Col. 11 lines 13-37, Col. 11 lines 40-48 “the aggregation module initiates creation of token grouping that eventually the communication device 108 collects the initial tokens’, Col. 14 lines 1-34)
receiving, by the marketplace application on the first user device, a digital tag associated with a second user from a second user device via a short range communication (Col. 11 lines 19-29 ‘short range communication’) between the first user device and the second user device (Col. 11 lines 53-64 “the master token 306 may be provided to a specific application installed on the communication device 302”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Brendell to include “initiating, by a marketplace application on a first user device of a first user, a transaction with a second user; selecting, on the marketplace application, a transfer application to complete the transaction; launching the transfer application on the first user device”, as disclosed in Howard, in order to provide a system for generating a master token to be associated with a set of tokens used to complete a transaction (see Howard abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Malhotra, Brendell, Kumnick and Howard discloses the invention as above.
Howard further discloses wherein the transfer application further receives a transaction identifier, and the push transfer message further comprises the transaction identifier and the account identifier or token associated with the first user (Col. 11 lines 53-64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Brendell to include “wherein the transfer application further receives a transaction identifier, and the push transfer message further comprises the transaction identifier and the account identifier or token associated with the first user”, as disclosed in Howard, in order to provide a system for generating a master token to be associated with a set of tokens used to complete a transaction (see Howard abstract).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Malhotra, Brendell, Kumnick and Howard discloses the invention as above.
Kumnick further discloses wherein the primary account number or token received is a virtual primary account number or virtual token (Col. 4 lines 13-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Malhotra to include wherein the primary account number or token received is a virtual primary account number or virtual token, as disclosed in Kumnick, in order to provide tokens that may be used to make a consumer's payment account information more secure without interfering with a merchant's programs (see Kumnick Col. 23 lines 7-21).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Malhotra, Brendell, Kumnick and Howard discloses the invention as above.
Kunick further discloses wherein the push transfer message is an original credit transaction message (Col. 4 lines 24-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Malhotra to include wherein the push transfer message is an original credit transaction message, as disclosed in Kumnick, in order to provide tokens that may be used to make a consumer's payment account information more secure without interfering with a merchant's programs (see Kumnick Col. 23 lines 7-21).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, while Brendell discloses: receiving, by the transfer application, a transaction identifier, the transaction amount, and a time stamp (¶0024)
The combination of Malhotra, Brendell, Kumnick and Fedak does not disclose: generate, by the transfer application, a pull transfer message comprising the transaction identifier, an account identifier or token associated with a first user of the user device, and the primary account number or token associated with the second user; and transmitting, by the transfer application to the transport computer, the pull transfer message.
Kumnick however discloses: generate, by the transfer application, a pull transfer message comprising the transaction amount, the transaction identifier, an account identifier or token associated with a first user of the user device, and the primary account number or token associated with the second user; and transmitting, by the transfer application to the transport computer, the pull transfer message (Col. 16 lines 47-51, Col. 16 lines 59-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Malhotra to include generate, by the transfer application, a pull transfer message comprising the transaction amount, the transaction identifier, an account identifier or token associated with a first user of the user device, and the primary account number or token associated with the second user; and transmitting, by the transfer application to the transport computer, the pull transfer message, as disclosed in Kumnick, in order to provide tokens that may be used to make a consumer's payment account information more secure without interfering with a merchant's programs (see Kumnick Col. 23 lines 7-21).
Regarding Claim 8, Malhotra discloses wherein the transfer application adds the transaction amount to an account associated with the first user (¶0028)
Regarding Claim 9, Malhotra discloses transmitting, by the transfer application to a first authorizing entity computer associated with a first authorizing entity, the transaction amount to be added to an account associated with the first user managed by the first authorizing entity (¶0028)
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, the combination of Malhotra, Brendell, Kumnick and Howard discloses the invention as above.
Brendell discloses wherein the pull transfer message is an account funding transaction message (¶0031)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Malhotra to include “receiving, on a first user device, [a transaction amount]”, as disclosed in Brendell, in order to provide a contactless payment system for merchant transactions (see Brendell abstract).
Regarding Claims 11 and 14, Malhotra discloses wherein the first user device is a mobile device (¶0094)
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Malhotra, Brendell, Kumnick and Howard discloses the invention as above.
Howard further discloses: routing the digital tag associated with the second user and the transaction amount from the marketplace application to the transfer application within a secure runtime context of the first user device (Col. 14 lines 1-34, Col. 15 lines 13-24, Col. 15 lines 53-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Brendell to include “routing the digital tag associated with the second user and the transaction amount from the marketplace application to the transfer application within a secure runtime context of the first user device”, as disclosed in Howard, in order to provide a system for generating a master token to be associated with a set of tokens used to complete a transaction (see Howard abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights