DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 17/961,501 (10/06/22) filed on 04/15/24.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10 - 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11468432. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to:
Application No. 17961501 (as represented by claim 10)
US Pat. No. 11468432 (as represented by claim 1)
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
interacting, by a mobile computing device, with a touchpoint comprising a touchpoint value that includes a digital invitation associated with a communication session with a merchant, wherein the communication session is to establish a real time communication between the mobile computing device and a merchant computing device for the merchant;
receiving, by a mobile computing device, a touchpoint value from a touchpoint, wherein the touchpoint value includes a digital invitation associated with a communication session with a merchant;
receiving, by the mobile computing device, the touchpoint value via the interacting with the touchpoint;
determining, by the mobile computing device, the digital invitation from the touchpoint value;
determining, by the mobile computing device, the digital invitation from the touchpoint value;
automatically launching an application component on the mobile computing device;
sending, by the mobile computing device, a request to access the digital invitation to a transaction bridge server;
sending, by the mobile computing device, a request to access the digital invitation to a transaction bridge server;
establishing, by the mobile computing device, the communication session with a merchant computing device of the merchant;
establishing, by the mobile computing device, the communication session with the merchant computing device;
receiving, by the mobile computing device and from the transaction bridge server via the communication session, a display page comprising transaction information for a purchase transaction with the merchant;
receiving, by the mobile computing device and from the transaction bridge server via the communication session, a display page comprising transaction information for a purchase transaction with the merchant;
presenting the display page, the display page comprising information pertaining to one or more products at a merchant location available for purchase from the merchant;
presenting the display page by the application component of the mobile computing device, the display page comprising information pertaining to one or more products at a merchant location available for purchase from the merchant;
receiving, by the mobile computing device, a user selection of a portion of the one or more products based on interaction with the display page; and
receiving, by the mobile computing device, a user selection of a portion of the one or more products based on interaction with the display page;
sending, by the mobile computing device, a purchase order request to the transaction bridge server, the purchase order comprising the user selection, wherein the transaction bridge server enables the purchase order to be completed even in the absence of a commonly supported payment instrument supported by both the mobile computing device and the merchant computing device.
sending, by the mobile computing device, a purchase order request to the transaction bridge server, the purchase order comprising the user selection, wherein the transaction bridge server enables the purchase order to be completed even in the absence of a commonly supported payment instrument supported by both the mobile computing device and the merchant computing device; and
receiving, by the mobile computing device and from the transaction bridge server, a confirmation indicating completion of the purchase transaction.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is Ling, US Pub. No. 2004/0030605. Ling is relevant to the claimed invention because it discloses a bridge computer that facilitates user(s)/ user device(s) browsing for products and conducting transactions to purchase products with vendor(s)/ vendor computer(s). Although Ling is relevant in some respects, there are differences. For example, the claimed invention describes receiving, by a mobile computing device, a touchpoint value from a touchpoint, wherein the touchpoint value includes a digital invitation associated with a communication session with a merchant; determining, by the mobile computing device, the digital invitation from the touchpoint value; sending, by the mobile computing device, a request to access the digital invitation to a transaction bridge server.
With respect to the non-patent literature reference listed below:
“Near Field Communication and Bluetooth Bridge System for Mobile Commerce,” by C.Y. Leong; K.C. Ong; K.K. Tan; O.P. Gan. 2006 IEEE.International Conference on Industrial Informatics. (hereinafter Leong)
Leong is relevant to the claimed invention because it describes a bridge system for mobile commerce. Although Leong is relevant in some respects, there are differences. For example, in Leong, the bridge system is for connecting Bluetooth enabled devices to NFC enabled devices. For example, the claimed invention describes use of a touchpoint value that includes a digital invitation. For example, in the claimed invention, the transaction bridge server is used to facilitate purchase transactions with a merchant.
Response to Arguments
101
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
112
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Remarks
Multiple attempts by the examiner to reach the applicant or schedule an interview have proven unsuccessful. If applicant wishes to discuss any outstanding issues in this case, please schedule an interview prior to submitting the next response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to transaction bridge transactions.
US Pub. No. 2019/0340622
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Behncke can be reached on (571)272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3697
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights