DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 07/10/2025.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended and new claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-14, 16, 18, and 20-22 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 11, and 14 being independent).
The amendment filed 07/10/2025 to the claims has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 7-9):
(1) Applicant arguments that “As pointed out previously, the claims do not broadly cover "managing an electronic wallet" as alleged in the Office Action. Rather, the claims specifically relate to the determination of a sequence for using virtual transaction cards of an electronic wallet, but not the actual use of the virtual transaction cards in a payment transaction.” (see remarks, page 7), are not found persuasive. As alleged in previous Office Action, the cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Managing virtual transaction cards of the electronic wallet associated with a connected equipment (e.g., determining a sequence for using at least two virtual transaction cards based on the features of the cards of the wallet associated with a device) is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking/applying to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(2) Applicant arguments that “Accordingly, the claims do not recite the cited judicial exception of a fundamental economic principle or practice, as alleged in the Office Action. For this reason alone, the rejections should be withdrawn under prong 1 of step 2A.” (see remarks, page 8), are not found persuasive. Examiner considers the courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic concepts" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, such as agreements between people in the form of contracts, legal obligations, and business relations. The idea that a customer may pay for services or products from a provider at a piece of equipment or terminal is the type of fundamental business practice that, when implemented using a generic computer technology, is not patent-eligible under Alice. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(3) Applicant arguments that “Furthermore, the claimed embodiments provide an improvement to the technology of electronic wallets and electronic transaction security and, thus, integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application.” (see remarks, page 8), are not found persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees in “improving the technology of electronic wallets and electronic transaction security” as argued. The Examiner fails to see how the instant application addresses a problem unique to the technology of electronic wallets, as claimed in determining a sequence for using two or more of transaction cards based upon some conditions. Rather, this is a solution to a business problem. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of “an electronic wallet”, “a shared connected piece of equipment”, and “a device” (amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component (e.g. “apply it”)) are claimed and described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(4) Applicant arguments that “Furthermore, claim 9 is amended to further describe the method as "including displaying or vocalizing the sequence and presenting a confirmation request using a user interface of the shared connected piece of equipment." Accordingly, claim 9 recites a real-world effect of the sequencing of the virtual transaction cards and further integrates any recited abstract idea into a practical application.” (see remarks, page 9), are not found persuasive. With regards to the prong two, and applicants arguments that the claims are integrated into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees, the Examiner fails to see how the recited claim indicative of a practical application, as laid out in MPEP 2106.04(d), as they fail to:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Therefore, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
With regard to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive and Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the citation above the prior art and it is addressed by the rejections under 35 USC 103.
(1) Applicant arguments that “Hammad focuses on vehicle configuration and payment processing based on information extracted from profiles that are linked to each user. Hammad does not address an algorithm or automatic method for sequencing virtual cards within the electronic wallet to process a single transaction request.” (see remarks, page 10), are not found persuasive.
Examiner consider that clarifying citations with regard the Hammad in view of Maya (see Hammad ¶ [0020-0023] and Maya ¶ [0052] and [0022-0023] have been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above. Hammad discloses a method of multiple users connects multiple electronic wallet accounts to the automobile interface and Maya discloses a method for sequencing the payment methods such as virtual cards as displaying the payment methods side by side in order determined according to a preference which relates to payment of the user. In combination of Hammad and Maya reads on the recited limitation in claim 1. Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(2) Applicant arguments that “The primary objective of Maya is to improve the wallet's user interface (e.g., by adapting the display of payment icons based on balance and enabling "on-the-fly" deposits). Therefore, Maya neither teaches nor suggests the determination of a multiple card usage sequence based on the analysis of card characteristics, transaction context and/or the identification of multiple users of the connected device.” (see remarks, page 10), are not found persuasive.
Examiner consider that clarifying citations with Hammad in view of Maya (see Maya ¶ [0052-0054] have been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above. For example, the preference of the user may be set by machine learning based on a usage history of each payment method by the user. As a result, the payment methods are displayed side by side in order corresponding to the preference of the user or in order of usage of the payment method or order of an update of information such as campaign information. Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-14, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for managing an electronic wallet (i.e. a digital wallet) associated with a connected equipment (e.g., a vehicle) which contains the steps of receiving, determining, identifying, prioritizing, displaying, vocalizing, presenting. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, claim 11 is direct to a management device, and claim 14 is direct to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for managing an electronic wallet (i.e. a digital wallet) associated with a connected equipment (e.g., a vehicle) is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: receiving… a transaction request…, determining… a sequence for using at least two virtual transaction cards…, identifying… persons…, prioritizing… the use of the stored virtual transaction cards…, displaying or vocalizing… the sequence…, presenting… a confirmation…, and involving… transaction card(s)…
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “an electronic wallet”, “a shared connected piece of equipment”, and “a device” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “a communication module” and “a memory and a processor” also amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. an electronic wallet, a shared connected piece of equipment, a device, a communication module, a memory, a processor, a communication module of the managing device, a memory of the managing device, and a computer program) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [41]: a shared connected piece of equipment, a processor, computer programs, electronic wallet, GPS, mobile terminal, a user interface, a touch screen, speed sensors, biometric sensors, a communication module, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 4G or 5G) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., an electronic wallet, a shared connected piece of equipment, a device, a communication module, a memory, a processor, a communication module of the managing device, a memory of the managing device, and a computer program) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer network with a generic interactive interface element.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 16, 18, and 20-22 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 2, the step of “… wherein determining the sequence takes further into account a transaction context on the basis of data extracted from the transaction request….” (i.e., determining orders), in claim 3, the step of “… identifying persons present….” (i.e., identifying persons), in claim 4, the step of “… wherein the transaction request comprises transaction information data included in the group consisting of...” (i.e., obtaining transaction data), in claim 5, the step of “… data included in the group consisting of: vehicle location data; time data...” (i.e., obtaining data), in claim 6, the step of “… wherein transaction rules involving use of one or more of the virtual transaction card(s)...” (i.e., storing transaction rules), in claim 7 the step of “… wherein the transaction rules are rules for prioritizing the use of the stored virtual transaction cards according to a categorization of the transaction...” (i.e., prioritizing transaction), in claim 8, the step of “… wherein at least one of the transaction rules is a division of an amount of a transaction between identified persons...” (i.e., sharing a bill), in claims 9, 21, and 22, the step of “… displaying or vocalizing the sequence and presenting a confirmation request using a user interface ...” (i.e., displaying payment method), in claim 10, the step of “… wherein the transaction rules are updated following a confirmation or a non-confirmation of the sequence...” (i.e., updating transaction rules), and in claims 16, 18, and 20, the step of “… wherein the features associated with the virtual transaction cards are selected from the group consisting of a purchase category, an authorized limit, ...” (i.e., selecting the features) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Performing a transaction using an electronic wallet associated with a connected equipment (e.g., automobile) is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 16, 18, and 20-22, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 11, and 14 above. Merely claiming the same process using an electronic wallet associated with a connected equipment (e.g., automobile) in order to perform a business transaction (e.g., buying a product/service) does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-14, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claims 1-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad et al. (hereinafter Hammad), US Publication Number 2015/0095190 A1 in view of Maya et al. (hereinafter Maya), US Publication Number 2021/0201287 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Hammad discloses the following:
A method for managing an electronic wallet associated with a shared connected piece of equipment, the electronic wallet comprising a plurality of virtual transaction cards, the method being implemented by a managing device and comprising: (Hammad: See paragraph [0020] “The user may also wish to have the ability to connect multiple electronic wallet accounts to the automobile interface at once, may wish to generate a plurality of automobile settings profiles, and/or the like. AMIP may allow the user to connect her wallet account to the smart automobile's internal display interface, allow the user to save a plurality of automobile settings to her wallet account, allow the user to use her wallet account to perform financial transactions and to provide information to the automobile, and/or like actions.”, and also see [0022-0023] and [0042-0043])
receiving by a communication module of the managing device, a transaction request originating from a device for providing services or products; and (Hammad: See paragraph [0040] “The automobile may send a store inventory request 344 to the AMIP server, similar to the process described above, in order to determine the automobile's proximity to merchants that may be of interest to the users (e.g., merchants that offer products/services listed on either user's lists). The server may, upon receiving the request, retrieve merchant information from the AMIP database, such as merchant names, merchant locations, merchant product inventories”, and see also [0029-0030])
Hammad does not explicitly disclose the following, however Maya further teaches:
determining (reads on “the display control unit 311 may display the payment methods ("A Pay" to "F Pay") side by side in order determined according to a preference of the user. The preference of the user is information that indicates a preference, which is related to payment, of the user and that is preferentially displaying a payment method with a cash back, preferentially displaying a payment method with which a coupon may be used, or preferentially displaying a payment method with a high point return rate, for example. The preference of the user may be input by the user or may be set by machine learning based on a usage history of each payment method by the user. As a result, the payment methods are displayed side by side in order corresponding to the preference of the user.”) a sequence for using at least two virtual transaction cards of the electronic wallet for the received transaction request based on features associated with the virtual transaction cards of the electronic wallet stored in a memory of the managing device, a transaction context (reads on “the display control unit 311 displays, in a gray-out manner, electronic money with a balance smaller than the payment amount”), which is based on data extracted from the transaction request, and an identification of at least one user of the shared connected piece of equipment. (Maya: see paragraphs [0051] “the payment screen 35a is displayed again and the display control unit 311 displays, in a gray-out manner, electronic money with a balance smaller than the payment amount. As a result, the user may recognize electronic money with a balance smaller than the payment amount, and convenience is improved.” And [0052] “As a result, the payment methods are displayed side by side in order corresponding to the preference of the user. Thus, the user may easily select a preferred payment method and convenience is improved. Similarly, displaying may be performed with a display mode (such as color or pattern) being changed according to a preference of the user or an attribute of a payment method (such as bank account, credit card, type or balance of electronic money, or presence/absence of a campaign or coupon).”, and see also [0022-0023] and [0053-0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multiple users who connect their electronic wallets to the automobile interface for the products and services of Hammad to include determining a sequence of multiple transaction cards based on a preference of the user or an attribute of a payment method, as taught by Maya, in order to provide a convenience for selecting a payment card. (See Maya [0052])
Regarding claim 2:
Hammad does not explicitly disclose the following, however Maya further teaches:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein determining the sequence is further based on data originating from the shared connected piece of equipment. (Maya: see paragraph [0046] “The display control unit 311 displays, as additional information determined based on a result of comparison between a balance of each payment method and a predetermined amount, a payment method in which a balance of electronic money is smaller than the predetermined amount in a display mode different from those of the other payment methods. the display control unit 311 displays a payment icon 353 of this payment method in a gray-out manner. The predetermined amount may be, for example, an amount set in advance. Here, even when a user selects the payment icon 353, payment is not performed.”, and see also [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multiple users who connect their electronic wallets to the automobile interface for the products and services of Hammad to include determining a sequence of multiple transaction cards based on a preference of the user or an attribute of a payment method, as taught by Maya, in order to provide a convenience for selecting a payment card. (See Maya [0046])
Regarding claim 3:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the identification of the at least one user of the shared connected piece of equipment comprises identifying persons present in the shared connected piece of equipment. (Hammad: See paragraph [0052] “The order 728 being placed may be apportioned between several user wallet accounts 726. In some implementations, the representation of a user's wallet account may be dragged onto a particular item being ordered to indicate that the payment for that item is to be charged to the selected wallet account. A summary of the payment apportionment may be visually displayed, such as in the manner shown in 730. For example, FIG. 7b shows that Jane's Wallet will be used to pay for item 2 and 3 (i.e., the 1 Large Soda and 1 Salad) 730, Kendra's Wallet will be used to pay
Regarding claim 4:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein the transaction request comprises transaction information data included in the group consisting of:
categorization of the transaction (reads on “identify a product (e.g., potato chips) listed on the user's shopping list, determine its general product category(ies) (e.g., food or snacks)”);
amount of the transaction (reads on “payment methods being used (including information pertaining to the wallets to which they are associated), the amount being charged to each payment method”); and
identity of the merchant (reads on “type of merchant that may offer it (e.g., supermarket, drug store, etc.), and search for merchants within the displayed map that offer the product or product category”) with which the transaction is made. (Hammad: See paragraphs [0043] and [0050])
Regarding claim 5:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to Claim 2, wherein the shared connected piece of equipment is a shared connected vehicle and wherein the data originating from the shared connected vehicle is data included in the group consisting of:
vehicle location data; (reads on “global positioning system (GPS) (thereby allowing AMIP controller to determine its location)”)
time data; and (reads on “the automobile may mark fast food restaurants in the area on the map if the automobile's internal clock system indicates that the time is close to a meal time (e.g., noon, 7 pm, etc.)”)
vehicle speed data (reads on “Automobile operation interface elements such as steering wheels, gearshifts, and speedometers facilitate the access, operation, and display of automobile resources, and status.”). (Hammad: See paragraphs [0035], [0073], and [0092])
Regarding claim 6:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein transaction rules involving use of one or more of the virtual transaction card(s) of the electronic wallet are stored in the electronic wallet associated with the shared connected piece of equipment. (Hammad: See paragraph [0061] “The wallet may read and apply the rules prior, and may reject any purchases with the unemployment funds that fail to meet the criteria set by the rules. Example criteria may include, for example, merchant category code (MCC), time of transaction, location of transaction, and/or the like.”)
Regarding claim 7:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to Claim 6, wherein the transaction rules are rules for prioritizing the use of the stored virtual transaction cards according to a categorization of the transaction or according to an identification of persons present in the piece of equipment. (Hammad: See paragraph [0060] “restricted payment mode 916 may be activated for certain purchase activities such as prescription purchases. The mode may be activated in accordance with rules defined by issuers, insurers, merchants, payment processor and/or other entities to facilitate processing of specialized goods and services.”, and see also [0061])
Regarding claim 8:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to claim 6, wherein at least one of the transaction rules is a division of an amount of a transaction between identified persons using the shared connected piece of equipment. (Hammad: See paragraph [0052] “The order 728 being placed may be apportioned between several user wallet accounts 726. In some implementations, the representation of a user's wallet account may be dragged onto a particular item being ordered to indicate that the payment for that item is to be charged to the selected wallet account. A summary of the payment apportionment may be visually displayed, such as in the manner shown in 730. For example, FIG. 7b shows that Jane's Wallet will be used to pay for item 2 and 3 (i.e., the 1 Large Soda and 1 Salad) 730, Kendra's Wallet will be used to pay for item 1 (i.e., the 1 Hamburger), and Laura's Wallet will not be used to pay for anything.”)
Regarding claim 9:
Hammad does not explicitly disclose the following, however Maya further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, including displaying or vocalizingand presenting a confirmation request using a user interface of the shared connected piece of equipment. (Maya: see paragraph [0052] “the display control unit 311 may display the payment methods ("A Pay" to "F Pay") side by side in order determined according to a preference of the user. The preference of the user is information that indicates a preference, which is related to payment, of the user and that is preferentially displaying a payment method with a cash back, preferentially displaying a payment method with which a coupon may be used, or preferentially displaying a payment method with a high point return rate, for example. The preference of the user may be input by the user or may be set by machine learning based on a usage history of each payment method by the user. As a result, the payment methods are displayed side by side in order corresponding to the preference of the user. Thus, the user may easily select a preferred payment method and convenience is improved.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multiple users who connect their electronic wallets to the automobile interface for the products and services of Hammad to include determining a sequence of multiple transaction cards based on a preference of the user or an attribute of a payment method, as taught by Maya, in order to provide a convenience for selecting a payment card. (See Maya [0052])
Regarding claim 10:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to claim 9, wherein transaction rules involving use of one or more of the virtual transaction card(s) of the electronic wallet are stored in the electronic wallet associated with the shared connected piece of equipment, and wherein the transaction rules are updated following a confirmation or a non-confirmation of the sequence via the user interface. (Hammad: See paragraph [0038] “The user may update the car settings, her wallet information ( e.g., may add payment devices, edit shopping and/or wish lists, and/or the like), and/or perform like tasks via the automobile interface 324. In response, the automobile may then make corresponding adjustments 326 and send an automobile preference update message to the AMIP server 328 or alternatively cause the user's device to send the update message to the AMIP server). The AMIP server may receive the update message and store the updated information in its database 330.”)
Regarding claim 12:
Hammad discloses the following:
A connected vehicle comprising the management device according to Claim 11. (Hammad: See paragraph [0020] “The user may also wish to have the ability to connect multiple electronic wallet accounts to the automobile interface at once, may wish to generate a plurality of automobile settings profiles, and/or the like. AMIP may allow the user to connect her wallet account to the smart automobile's internal display interface, allow the user to save a plurality of automobile settings to her wallet account, allow the user to use her wallet account to perform financial transactions and to provide information to the automobile, and/or like actions.”)
Regarding claim 16:
Hammad discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the features associated with the virtual transaction cards are selected from the group consisting of a purchase category (reads on “merchant category code (MCC)” and “restricted payment mode 916 may be activated for certain purchase activities such as prescription purchases.”), an authorized limit (reads on “an employer wallet may provide limited funds with strings attached for the employee wallet to utilize for business purposes only”), a restriction on rights of use (reads on “parent wallets 922 (e.g., those that have authorization to place restriction on the user's wallet)”), a geographical restriction (reads on “location of transaction”), a time restriction (reads on “time of transaction”) and a confirmation mode (reads on “asking for further confirmation of the order, authentication input (e.g. a passcode, a biometric confirmation, and/or the like), and/or the like, before the order is successfully processed.”). (Hammad: See paragraph [0053] “after a user chooses to complete the order, a message may be sent to the user's electronic device ( and/or to any other users who have contributed to the bill) asking for further confirmation of the order, authentication input (e.g. a passcode, a biometric confirmation, and/or the like), and/or the like, before the order is successfully processed.”, [0060] “restricted payment mode 916 may be activated for certain purchase activities such as prescription purchases.”, [0061] “The wallet may read and apply the rules prior, and may reject any purchases with the unemployment funds that fail to meet the criteria set by the rules. Example criteria may include, for example, merchant category code (MCC), time of transaction, location of transaction, and/or the like.”, and [0062] “parent wallets 922 (e.g., those that have authorization to place restriction on the user's wallet)” and “partial bond wallets 926 (e.g., such as bonds between corporate employer virtual wallet and an employee's personal wallet, such that an employer wallet may provide limited funds with strings attached for the employee wallet to utilize for business purposes only)”)
Regarding claims 11 and 14: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 18 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 16, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 21 and 22: it is similar scope to claim 9, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad in view of Maya in further view of Dicker et al. (hereinafter Dicker), US Publication Number 2022/0318798 A1.
Regarding claim 13:
Hammad and Maya do not explicitly disclose the following, however Dicker further teaches:
The management device according to Claim 11, wherein the management device is included in a device for managing a shared connected home. (Dicker: See paragraph [0096] “a user's home appliance client device 100' (e.g., a washing machine) that may be communicatively coupled to a communication network using a home automation platform (e.g., HomeKit™ by Apple Inc.) may be operative to determine that it is almost out of a resource needed to operate properly (e.g., washing machine client device 100' may be operative to determine automatically that its reserve of laundry detergent is at 20% capacity). In response to such a determination, home appliance client device 100' may be operative to automatically identify an opportunity to purchase more of that resource”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multiple users who connect their electronic wallets to the automobile interface for the products and services of Hammad to include a user's home appliance client device (e.g., a washing machine) that is communicatively coupled to a communication network using a home automation platform, as taught by Dicker, in order to share a financial transaction with a user's home appliance. (See Dicker, paragraph [0003])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
September 16, 2025
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694