DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 09/08/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 03/14/2025 has been withdrawn.
35 USC 101 – Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 09/08/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 101 (non-statutory subject matter) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 (non-statutory subject matter) rejection of claims 11-20 of 03/14/2025 has been withdrawn.
35 USC 101 – Subject Matter Eligibility
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Examiner’s characterization of claim 1 being directed to “a method of authorizing a redemption request” is over-simplified and that the claim relies on computer-specific operations that are outside the scope of the human mind’s capabilities. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has not oversimplified the claims. Examiner recited the specific limitations in representative claim 1 that recite an abstract idea. Examiner further categorized which steps reciting the identified abstract idea fell into which enumerated grouping. Examiner did not say “verifying, by the POS device, the signature utilizing the extracted public key” all was something done via the human mind. Rather, Examiner took which specific parts of the limitation that were directed to a type of evaluation and judgment (mental process) (e.g., verifying the signature).
Applicant argues that the abstract idea is incorporated into a practical application, specifically in that it improves a technology or technical field of secure data communications with steps that involve an interconnection of particularized system components and a multi-party verification process that presents a solution to a technical problem in a technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such as the POS device of a data communication system, a user computing device, marketplace server, blockchain, and marketplace database merely implement the abstract idea. The use of these devices, servers, and blockchain/databases as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract ideas. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The claims receive information form a blockchain which is a generic conventional operation. A blockchain is a highly protected, but generic ledger. There is nothing to suggest that there has been some sort of technological improvement in either the POS device, marketplace server, blockchain, and/or database. The additional elements are merely data gathering, storing, and comparing all performed by generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired. The Specification only spells out different generic equipment that might be applied and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial sales by exchanging items/redemption based on verification signature under a certain scenario. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. See Specification page 6. Claim 1 is directed to achieving the results of authorizing redemption requests for exchange items with no technological improvement for achieving or applying such result.
Applicant further argues that the “inventive concept” of claim 1 is significantly more than an attempt to obtain a patent on “authorizing a redemption request” and provides a new and useful application of authorizing redemption requests because it renders the method more trustworthy and reliable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner disagrees. The function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving a request, sending user information, receiving authorization information, extracting information from a blockchain, verifying the signature, and authorizing the request amounts to electronic data query and retrieval – one of the most basic functions of a computer. None of the activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. None of these tasks were “invented” by Applicant. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Therefore, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recite din the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the database and public key extraction of Lin in the cryptographically signed records exchange system of Kaehler and that combining access to a centrally stored blockchain during the redemption verification process of Lin with the offline peer-to-peer communication of Kaehler defeats the purpose of Kaehler’s system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejections above, the examiner has established a prima facie case of obvious and has used the rationale as set forth in KSR v. Teleflex and the proposed modification would not change the principle operation of the prior art. Examiner notes that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art or it may be reasoned form knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See MPEP 2144 (I). Here, it would have been obvious for in one instance for the POS device to verify the signature using the public key and that in another instance that public key having been previously extracted from the marketplace server. For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-10, is directed to the process. Additionally, the computer readable storage device, as claimed in claims 11-20 is directed to a manufacture.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of authorizing a redemption request. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving a redemption request from a user, wherein the redemption request includes one or more of a user computing device identifier, a representation of a public key of a public/private key pair associated with the user, an identifier of an exchange item, and a signature;
Sending user information regarding the redemption request to a marketplace, wherein the use information includes a representation of at least some of the information within the redemption request;
Receiving authorization information from the marketplace, wherein the authorization information includes a portion of data associated with the exchange item, wherein the portion includes the public key of the public/private key pair,
Extracting the public key from the received portion of the data associated with the exchange item;
Verifying the signature utilizing the extracted public key; and
When the signature is verified authorizing the redemption request.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving a redemption request, sending user information regarding the redemption request, receiving authorization information, and authorizing the redemption request is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is also considered to be a mental process. Mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In this case, the step of verifying the signature is a type of evaluation and judgment. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a POS device of a data communication system, a user computing device, marketplace server, blockchain, and marketplace database. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., authorizing a redemption request) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: a digital wallet (claim 3), a merchant server (claim 5), sensors (claim 10). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using machinery that is operating in its ordinary capacity. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9, further define the same abstract idea noted in Claim 1 and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in Claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the same reasons given above.
Thus, dependent claims 2-10 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 11 recites the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a computer readable storage device, a first memory section, POS device, data communication system, user computing device, marketplace server, blockchain, and marketplace database. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the additional elements recited in independent claim 11 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 11 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. When viewed as a whole, representative claim 11 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 11 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Similarly, the dependent claims 12-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-10. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-10, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 12-20 are also ineligible.
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) 1-8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehler (US 2018/0034642) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0046651).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Kaehler discloses a method comprising (Kaehler: see at least paragraph [0004] disclosing systems and methods for securely exchanging cryptographically signed records)
Receiving, by a point of sale (POS) device of a data communication system (See at least paragraph [0349] disclosing system interacting with point of sales system such as cash register or the equivalent, [0078] disclosing processing platform comprised of server or collection of servers that is infrastructural to the system, [0158] disclosing external devices including point of sale systems, [0255] disclosing communication between devices of the processing platform,), a redemption request from a user computing device of the data communication system, wherein the redemption request includes one or more of a user computing device identifier associated with the user computing device, a representation of a public key of a public/private key pair associated with the user computing device, an identifier of an exchange item, and a signature generated utilizing a private key of the public/private key pair (See at least paragraph [0004] disclosing content request and using public and private key encryption techniques, [0084] disclosing content request can comprise content B and public key of the record receiver device, document ID, public key that can uniquely identify the device, [0086] disclosing content request form user device, [0097] disclosing public key in the content request, [0100] disclosing signature can be part of the content request and signature created using private key from the public=key cryptography pair);
Sending, by the POS device (See at least paragraph [0158] & [0349] disclosing POS device), use information regarding the redemption request to a marketplace server of the data communication system, wherein the use information includes a representation of at least some of the information within the redemption request (See at least paragraph [0100] disclosing signature can be part of the content request, [0281] disclosing servers of the processing platform, [0297] disclosing central data servers can authenticate transactions using digital tools and techniques available on digital platforms such as digital cryptography for endorsement of cheques with variable value amounts, [0300] disclosing processing platform can be a server, [0311] disclosing request can contain a merchant’s public key and requested value, [0368] disclosing exchanging contents and records such as signed digital cheques can be implemented using one or more user devices, processing platforms, and one or more financial institution servers – users can send individual records such as cryptographically signed digital checks);
Receiving, by the POS device (See at least paragraph [0158] & [0349] disclosing POS device), authorization information from the marketplace server, wherein the authorization information includes a portion of a blockchain associated with the exchange item, wherein the portion includes the public key of the public/private key pair (See at least paragraph [0060] disclosing individual record can comprise a chain of blocks where each block identifies its originator and can be signed by the user handling the blocks at that time and public/private key pairs used within the blocks, [0061] disclosing verifying the authenticity of one or more signatures in the chain of blocks, [0089] disclosing individual record can be digital object comprising one or more blocks that includes a “to field, record ID, content, sender signature and public key of record sender device, [0093] disclosing redeem modified individual record with processing platform that processes interaction by verifying the authenticity of one or more signatures in the chain of blocks, [0192] disclosing processing platform can verify the authenticity of one or more signatures in the chain of blocks, [0305] disclosing any digital cheque can be a chain of blocks each identifying its originator and signed by the party handling the blocks, [0386] disclosing after signing the digital cheque the cheque can be redeemed with the processing platform and service provider operating the platform can process interaction by verifying authenticity of one or more signatures in the chain of blocks and after successful verification he processing platform can perform based on the payment amount)
Verifying, by the POS device (See at least paragraph [0158] & [0349] disclosing POS device), the signature utilizing the public key (See at least paragraphs [0004]-[0005] disclosing verifying signature using public key, [0061] disclosing verifying signature using public key)
When the signature is verified, authorizing, by the POS device (See at least paragraph [0158] & [0349] disclosing POS device), the redemption request (See at least paragraph [0004] disclosing redeem record upon successful verification).
Kaehler does not expressly provide for wherein the blockchain is stored in a marketplace database of the communication system; and extracting, by the POS device, the public key form the received portion of the blockchain associated with the exchange item.
However, Lin discloses wherein the blockchain is stored in a marketplace database of the communication system (See at least paragraph [0137] disclosing blockchain ledger stored in portions of data repository, [0170] disclosing maintain blockchain ledger in portion of data repository); and extracting, by the POS device, the public key form the received portion of the blockchain associated with the exchange item (See at least paragraph [0087] disclosing extracting from blockchain ledger information such as public keys and transmitting the data specifying those transactions for verification and processing, [0091] disclosing parse and extracted from blockchain ledger certain data specifying transactions such as public key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the database and public key extraction as taught by Lin in the cryptographically signed records exchange system of Kaehler because it would help ensure security of blockchain ledger architectures and the ability to maintain and access information within them. See Lin at least paragraph [0020], [0066], [0068].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Kaehler discloses wherein the redemption request further comprises a copy of the blockchain, wherein the copy of the blockchain includes the representation of the public key of the public/private key pair (See at least paragraph [0061] disclosing the record with its last block can be electronically communicated to and redeemed with the service provider, use public key of the record sender)).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12. While Kaehler discloses a digital wallet of the user computing device (See at least paragraph [0299]), Kaehler does not expressly provide for wherein the copy of the blockchain is stored in a digital wallet.
However, Lin discloses wherein the copy of the blockchain is stored in a digital wallet (See at least paragraph [0032] disclosing wallet application process portions of stored data and render stored data for presentation to user, [0056], [0079], & [0081] all disclosing user device with wallet application capable of obtaining current version of conventional blockchain ledger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the copy of blockchain in a digital wallet as taught by Lin in the cryptographically signed records exchange system of Kaehler because it would help a user be able to have a current version of the blockchain ledger on their own device to help track assets. See Lin at least paragraph [0056].
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Kaehler discloses wherein the redemption request further comprises an identifier of an item to acquire utilizing the exchange item (See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057] disclosing record identifier to identify that the document that record receiver can receive, [0062] disclosing trying to gain access to document with particular ID, [0084] disclosing exchange and redeem individual record where content request includes document ID for content B).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Kaehler discloses receiving, by the marketplace server, the use information from at least one of a merchant server of the data communication system and the POS device (See at least paragraph [0100] disclosing signature can be part of the content request, [0281] disclosing servers of the processing platform, [0297] disclosing central data servers can authenticate transactions using digital tools and techniques available on digital platforms such as digital cryptography for endorsement of cheques with variable value amounts, [0300] disclosing processing platform can be a server, [0311] disclosing request can contain a merchant’s public key and requested value, [0368] disclosing exchanging contents and records such as signed digital cheques can be implemented using one or more user devices, processing platforms, and one or more financial institution servers – users can send individual records such as cryptographically signed digital checks); and identifying, by the marketplace server, the blockchain based on the identifier of the exchange item (See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057] disclosing portion of blockchain (e.g., a block of the blockchain) is comprised of certain information such as record identifier ID that can uniquely identify the content/individual record, [0060] disclosing individual record can comprise a chain of blocks with each block identifying its originator, [0078] disclosing processing platform comprised of server(s) can contain and maintain the central records to access contents identified in the records (e.g., portion of blockchain with certain information), [0081] disclosing processing platform provide access to document with document ID stored in the content).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 5 and 15. Additionally, Kaehler further discloses identifying, by the marketplace server, the portion of the blockchain based on the user computing device identifier associated with the exchange item (See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057] disclosing portion of blockchain (e.g., a block of the blockchain) is comprised of certain information such as record identifier ID that can uniquely identify the content/individual record, [0060] disclosing individual record can comprise a chain of blocks with each block identifying record receiver device, [0078] disclosing processing platform comprised of server(s) can contain and maintain the central records to access contents identified in the records (e.g., portion of blockchain with certain information), [0080] disclosing central records including devices of the sender/receiver).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 5 and 15. Additionally, Kaehler further discloses identifying, by the marketplace server, the portion of the blockchain based on the representation of the public key (See at least paragraph [0056] disclosing portion of blockchain (e.g., a block of the blockchain) is comprised of certain information such public key, [0060] disclosing individual record can comprise a chain of blocks with each block and each individual record can contain the public key, [0078] disclosing processing platform comprised of server(s) can contain and maintain the central records to access contents identified in the records (e.g., portion of blockchain with certain information) and configured to store public keys, [0080] disclosing public keys are in common records, [0089] disclosing individual record can be digital object comprising one or more blocks and may be comprised of public key).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 7 and 17. Additionally, Kaehler discloses verifying, by the marketplace server, the public key by comparing the public key to the representation of the public key (See at least paragraph [0073]-[0074] disclosing using public keys and updated public keys of a device to make verify authenticity of the updated public keys of the devices, [0090] disclosing using public keys to authenticate signatures wherein public key may be obtained from individual records or common records, [0125] disclosing verify but using public keys of first device and second device in individual record); and when the comparison is favorable, generating, by the marketplace server, the authorization information to include an indication of a favorable verification (See at least paragraph [0004] disclosing redeem record upon successful verification, [0172] disclosing notify agent device that record has been successfully processed using a “handled by endorsement” (HBE), [0385] disclosing after successfully verifying digital cheque may create and sign modified digital cheque and include endorsement block).
Kaehler does not expressly provide for extracting, by the marketplace server, the public key form the portion of the blockchain.
However, Lin discloses extracting, by the marketplace server, the public key form the portion of the blockchain (See at least paragraph [0087] disclosing extracting from blockchain ledger information such as public keys and transmitting the data specifying those transactions for verification and processing, [0091] disclosing parse and extracted from blockchain ledger certain data specifying transactions such as public key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included public key extraction as taught by Lin in the cryptographically signed records exchange system of Kaehler because it would help ensure security of blockchain ledger architectures and the ability to maintain and access information within them. See Lin at least paragraph [0020], [0066], [0068].
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehler (US 2018/0034642) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0046651), and further in view of Flanagan et al. (US 2014/0304148).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Kaehler and Lin teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Neither Kaehler nor Lin expressly provide for prior to authorizing the redemption request: determining, by the POS device, a risk level associated with the redemption request; and when the risk level exceeds a risk threshold: determining, by the POS device, to further authorize the redemption request in accordance with one or more risk abatement approaches; executing, by the POS device, the one or more risk abatement approaches to produce an abatement result; and further authorizing the redemption request when the abatement result is favorable.
However, Flanagan discloses prior to authorizing the redemption request: determining, by the POS device, a risk level associated with the redemption request (See at least Fig. 5 disclosing calculating a risk score, paragraph [0033] disclosing risk evaluator, [0055]-[0056] disclosing determining risk score); and when the risk level exceeds a risk threshold: determining, by the POS device, to further authorize the redemption request in accordance with one or more risk abatement approaches (See at least Fig. 7 disclosing depending on risk score requiring a secondary verification, [0064] & [0068] disclosing depending on risk score being less than certain amount, seeking secondary validation); executing, by the POS device, the one or more risk abatement approaches to produce an abatement result (See at least Fig. 7 disclosing obtaining or not obtaining secondary validation and then either approving or rejecting request, [0064] & [0068] disclosing obtaining secondary validation)); and further authorizing the redemption request when the abatement result is favorable (See at least Fig. 7 disclosing providing service upon approved request with secondary validation, paragraph [0064] & [0068] disclosing whether to approve or reject based on secondary validation being obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a risk level when determining whether to authorize a request as taught by Flanagan in the request verification system of Kaehler/Lin because it would help to mitigate fraud with the use of certain safeguards. See at least Flanagan paragraph [0002], [0019].
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehler (US 2018/0034642) in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0046651), in view of Flanagan et al. (US 2014/0304148), and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0287026).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Kaehler, Lin, and Flanagan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 9 and 19. However, none of the above cited references disclose wherein a risk abatement approach of the one or more risk abatement approaches includes one or more of: interpreting the authorization information to determine whether the marketplace server independently verified the representation of the public key.
Yang discloses wherein a risk abatement approach of the one or more risk abatement approaches includes one or more of: interpreting the authorization information to determine whether the marketplace server independently verified the representation of the public key (See at least Abstract disclosing servers to independently authenticate transaction request by verification, paragraph [0016] disclosing signature verification using public keys).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included independent verification as taught by Yang in the redemption request system of Kaehler/Lin/Flanagan because it would help to provide better security systems with respect to user privacy and fraud prevention. See Yang at least paragraph [0003].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688