DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 04/23/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 25, and 26 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 04/23/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With regard to claims 10-20, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion of should be included.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 21-26 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calman et al. (USPGP 2015/0026056 A1), hereinafter CALMAN, in view of Gordon et al. (USPGP 2014/0074724 A1), hereinafter GORDON.
Claims 1, 25, 26:
CALMAN as shown below discloses the following limitations:
displaying, on a display of the terminal, at least a first display region including first information relating to a first remittance request from a first user to a user of the terminal, and a second display region including second information relating to a second remittance request from the user of the terminal to a second user; (see at least Figure 4 as well as associated and related text; paragraphs 0008, 0067, 0072, 0090, 0112)
based on an input to the terminal being received while the first display region and the second display region are displayed, performing, by a controller of the terminal, first processing based on the first information and the second information. (see at least Figure 4 as well as associated and related text; paragraphs 0008, 0067, 0072, 0090, 0112)
CALMAN does not specifically disclose:
wherein the first processing is associated with a collective settlement corresponding to both the first remittance request and the second remittance request.
However, GORDON in at least paragraphs 0033, 0038, 0056, and 0065 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. Regardless, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention effective filing date to combine/modify the online banking method of CALMAN with the Windows functionality of GORDON because, “…there is a need to provide systems, methods, apparatus, and computer program products for allowing a user to use a mobile device for performing transactions over a reliable or a trusted connection.” (CALMAN: paragraph 0001). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 3-9:
CALMAN/GORDON discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CALMAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first information comprises information on a first amount relating to remittance,
the second information comprises information on a second amount relating to the first remittance.
the second information comprises information on a second amount relating to the first remittance.
transmitting, by a communication part of the terminal, information relating to an approval of execution of the first processing to a terminal of the second user,
wherein the first processing is executed by the controller based on approval to execute the first processing given by the second user based on the information relating to the approval.
wherein the second user is the first user.
wherein the first remittance request comprises a remittance request from the user of the terminal to the first user,
the second remittance request comprises a remittance request from the first user to the user of the terminal, the first information comprises information on a first amount relating to remittance,
the second information comprises information on a second amount relating to remittance,
the first processing comprises processing for remitting a third amount obtained by subtracting the first amount from the second amount to the first user if the second amount is greater than the first amount. wherein the first user is a different user from the second user.
wherein the first information comprises information on a first amount relating to remittance, the second information comprises information on a second amount relating to remittance, and
the first processing is performed by the controller based on the first amount, the second amount, and a balance of the user of a user terminal.
See at least paragraphs 0008, 0057, 0061, 0072, and 0084.
Claims 21-24:
CALMAN/GORDON discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CALMAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the terminal executes second processing for processing at least one piece of information based on the balance of the user of the terminal, among a plurality of pieces of information relating to a remittance request to the user of the terminal or a remittance request performed by the user of the terminal.
wherein the second processing comprises processing for selecting information that is processable with the balance of the user of the terminal among the plurality of pieces of information, and the selected information is processed.
wherein the second user is the first user, and
the first processing comprises processing relating to remittance from the first user to the user of the terminal or processing relating to remittance from the user of the terminal to the first user.
wherein the processing relating to remittance comprises displaying, on the display, information indicating that processing of a remittance request based on the first information and processing of a remittance request based on the second information have been executed.
See at least paragraphs 0008, 0057, 0061, 0072, 0084, 0096, 0102, 0105, 0112, 0120, and 0124.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CALMAN/GORDON and further in view of Applicant’s Own Admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 10-16:
CALMAN GORDON discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CALMAN/GORDON does not specifically disclose:
wherein if a sum of the first amount and the second amount exceeds the balance and remittance is to be performed from the user of the terminal, the terminal displays a third display region indicating that the first processing is not executable, on the display.
wherein if a sum of the first amount and the second amount exceeds the balance and remittance is to be performed from the user of the terminal, the terminal displays a fourth display region indicating addition of money to the balance, on the display.
wherein the terminal displays the first display region, the second display region, and another display region relating to adding money to the balance or relating to a loan, on the display.
wherein the terminal displays a fifth display region relating to execution of the first processing, on the display and a display mode of the fifth display region is changed based on the first amount, the second amount, and the balance.
wherein if a sum of the first amount and the second amount exceeds the balance and remittance is to be performed from the user of the terminal, the fifth display region is displayed on the display in a display mode indicating that the first processing is not executable.
wherein the first processing is executed based on input performed by the user of the terminal regarding the fifth display region and approval of the first user or the second user relating to execution of the first processing.
wherein the first processing is executed based on the balance of the user of the terminal and a balance of the first user or the second user.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the banking arts to anticipate insufficient funds requests, overdrawn accounts, and to establish lines of credit to avoid overdraft fees and bounced checks. Support for the Examiner’s position can be found in CALMAN, at least the abstract (mobile banking transactions). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention effective filing date to combine/modify the online banking method of CALMAN with the fundamental procedures of nominal banking policies because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Claims 17-20:
CALMAN/ GORDON discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CALMAN/GORDON does not specifically disclose:
wherein in the first processing, processing based on the first information and the second information is executed based on input performed by the user of the terminal to the terminal, among a plurality of pieces of information relating to a remittance request to the user of the terminal or a remittance request performed by the user of the terminal, the plurality of pieces of information comprising at least the first information and the second information.
wherein the first information and the second information are information on the same amount, and
the first processing is processing for canceling out the first information and the second information based on the first information and the second information.
wherein the first processing comprises processing for selecting at least the first information and the second information among the plurality of pieces of information based on the balance of the user of the terminal, the processing being performed based on at least the first information and the second information.
wherein the second user is the first user, and
the first processing comprises processing for displaying, on the display, a sixth display based on third information relating to the remittance request from the first user to the user of the terminal or the remittance request from the user of the terminal to the first user, which is obtained by adding together an amount of the first information and the second information.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the banking arts to elicit transaction prompts from the user(s) to fulfill transfers, bill payments, loan payments, etc. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention effective filing date to combine/modify the online banking method of CALMAN/GORDON with the fundamental procedures of nominal banking policies because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
ARIAS Remittance System. “Emerging Risks in Emerging Payments Conference at the Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta.” (15 – 16 Nov. 2010). Retrieved online 09/30/2024. https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/Documents/news/conferences/2010/rprf/Schmitz.pdf
Bank for International Settlements. “Cross-border retail payments.” (February 2018). Retrieved online 09/30/2024. https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d173.pdf
BLAZE Mobile. “Blaze Mobile Wallet.” (January, 2008). Retrieved online 09/30/2024. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/ftc-host-workshop-mobile-payments-and-their-impact-consumers-project-no.124808-561018-00014%C2%A0/561018-00014-82759.pdf
Foreign Art:
BAKIOGLU, SERTAC. “THE METHOD FOR CREDIT CARD AND ATM TRANSACTION BY MOBILE DEVICE.” (WO 2008/045007 A2)
KAYANAKIS, GEORGES et al. “ELECTRONIC CASH SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRONIC WALLET.” (WO 3007201 A2)
WADA, SHIGEFUMI et al. “ELECTRONIC BANKING DEVICE EQUIPPED WITH FUNCTION KEY FUNCTION.” (JP 2000/231437 A)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights