DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/11/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the instant Amendment, filed on 12/11/2025, claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending; claims 1, 9 and 16 are independent.
This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As to the rejections of claims 1-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the rejections are withdrawn as the claims have been amended correcting the issue.
Applicant’s arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 12/11/2025, with respect to the prior-art rejections to claims 1-20, and limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applied prior art continues to teach the claim limitations including the new limitations that are added or modified by the instant amendment.
Applicant’s Remarks: As to independent claim 1, the Applicant submits that applied priorart does not teach the at least the new limitations, “request .. dynamically generated on a periodic schedule based on predetermined settings of the resource distribution device”, and “wherein the one or more identifiers verify capabilities of the resource distribution device,” incorporating with the other claim limitations (Applicant Arguments/Remarks, 12/11/2025, pages 10-11).
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that secondary reference, Arora, teaches the features of the above addressed new limitations. Arora teaches of verification of transaction request, where the processing server identify and retrieves the geographic location of each user device at periodic intervals for transaction processing [i.e., dynamically processing in periodic schedule]. Then, the identified geographic location of each user device, and with respect predetermined distance threshold and elapsed time [i.e., capability verification], the processing server decides on the processing the transaction request (Arora: pars 0030-0033). The limitation does not refine as to (1) the algorithm that the “predetermined settings” are applied in the dynamic process (2) what specific “predetermined settings” are considered, and (3) what specific “capabilities” of the device is taken in verification consideration. Therefore, broadly interpreted Arora reference teaches the claim limitations, as applied in the rejections, addressed in the rejection section below.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record, by refining the limitations to recite:
(1) the algorithm that the “predetermined settings” are applied in the dynamic process,
(2) what specific “predetermined settings” are being considered, and
(3) what specific “capabilities” of the device is taken in verification consideration.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodsitt et al (“Goodsitt,” US 2021/0365538, published on 11/25/2021), in view of Arora (“Arora,” US 2020/0082401, published on 03/12/2020).
As to claim 1, Goodsitt teaches a system for verifying a resource distribution device from a plurality of resource distribution devices via scanning dynamic device-specific computer-readable indicia comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device (Goodsit: pars 0005, 0018, 0054, system and method for authenticating a user at a public terminal [i.e. a resource distribution device], to determine whether the user is authorized to operate the public terminal, associated with transaction functions. Where a code or patten, such as a Quick-Response (QR) code [i.e., computer-readable indicia], is scanned for authorizing the request), causes the processing device to:
receive, from a user input device, request specific to the resource distribution device, wherein the request comprises a unique identifier associated with the resource distribution device (Goodsitt:pars 0005, 0018, 0054, user device obtains the pattern/code/QR-code from the public terminal, and transmit back to the system or system application for authorization verification);
verify the resource distribution device based on at least the unique identifier, wherein verifying further comprises identifying a match between the unique identifier and one or more identifiers stored in a database, wherein the one or more identifiers are associated with one or more resource distribution devices (Goodsit: pars 0005, 0018, 0054, the system verifies that the received pattern/code/QR-code matches the pattern/code/QR-code that was provided by the public terminal); and
trigger the resource distribution device to execute the executed action request in response to verifying the resource distribution device (Goodsitt: pars 0005, 0018, 0054, upon a successful match, the system to authorize the user to user the public terminal).
Goodsitt does not explicitly teach receive .. an executed action request; trigger .. executed action request; request .. dynamically generated on a periodic schedule based on predetermined settings of the resource distribution device; and wherein the one or more identifiers verify capabilities of the resource distribution device.
However, in an analogous art, Arora teaches receive .. an executed action request; trigger .. executed action request (Arora: pars 0004, 0006-0007, a system and method for performing payment transaction request authorization process, initiated from a user computing device [i.e., executed action request], and making allowing or declining decision based on the verification of the received information with the request, and transmitting to the to a financial institution upon successful verification of the payment transaction request for completing the payment transaction associated with the user account).
request dynamically generated on a periodic schedule based on predetermined settings of the resource distribution device (Arora: pars 0030-0033, verification of transaction request, where the processing server identify and retrieves the geographic location of each user device at a periodic intervals for transaction processing [i.e., dynamically processing in periodic schedule]); and wherein the one or more identifiers verify capabilities of the resource distribution device (Arora: pars 0030-0033, the identified geographic location of each user device, and with respect predetermined distance threshold and elapsed time [i.e., capability verification], the processing server decides on the processing the transaction request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arora with the method/system of Goodsitt to include the limitation(s), receive .. an executed action request; trigger .. executed action request; request .. dynamically generated on a periodic schedule based on predetermined settings of the resource distribution device; and wherein the one or more identifiers verify capabilities of the resource distribution device, where one would have been motivated for the benefit of providing a user with a means for using a mobile device to request a financial transaction with the information associated with the account and transaction for allowing user to complete the requested transaction action upon verification associated with the user’s transaction account, and applying a periodic schedule and considering device capabilities (Arora: pars 0004, 0006-0007, 0031, 0033).
As to claim 2, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 1,
Arora further teaches wherein, in triggering the resource distribution device to execute the executed action request, the system is further configured to: determine a location information associated with the user input device; determine a location information associated with the resource distribution device; determine whether the location information associated with the user input device and the location information associated with the resource distribution device are within a predetermined geographical radius of each other; and trigger the resource distribution device to execute the executed action request in an instance where the location information associated with the user input device and the location information associated with the resource distribution device are within the predetermined geographical radius of each other (Arora: pars 0005, 0006-0007, when a payment transaction is attempted, the processing server compares the location of the transaction with the latest location of the consumer's devices to the device geographic location included in the account profile, considering a score threshold level [i.e., predetermined geographical radius], for allowing or declining the payment transaction request).
As to claim 3, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 2,
Goodsitt and Arora further teaches wherein, in triggering the resource distribution device to execute the executed action request, the system is further configured to: deny the executed action request in an instance where the location information associated with the user input device and the location information associated with the resource distribution device are not within the predetermined geographical radius of each other; and transmit a notification to the user input device in response to denying the executed action request, wherein the notification comprises an indication that the location information associated with the user input device and location information associated with the resource distribution device are outside of a predetermined geographical radius of each other (Arora: pars 0005, 0006-0007, the processing server compares the location of the transaction with the latest location of the consumer's devices to the device geographic location included in the account profile, considering a score threshold level [i.e., predetermined geographical radius], for allowing or declining the payment transaction request. Goodsitt: pars 0019, 0070 server may transmit an authentication message to the public terminal and/or mobile device).
As to claim 4, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 1,
Arora further teaches wherein, in receiving the executed action request from a specific resource distribution device, the system is further configured to: determine a time associated with the reception of the executed action request; determine a time associated with the verification of the resource distribution device; determine whether a difference between the time associated with the reception of the executed action request and the time associated with the verification of the resource distribution device is within a predetermined time limit; and trigger the executed action request in an instance where the difference between the time associated with the reception of the executed action request and the time associated with the verification of the resource distribution device is within a predetermined time limit (Arora: pars 0005, 0006-0007, When a payment transaction is attempted, the processing server compares the time and location of the transaction with the latest time and location of the consumer's devices to the timestamp and device geographic location included in the account profile, considering a score threshold level [i.e., predetermined limit], for allowing or declining the payment transaction request).
As to claim 5, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 1,
Goodsitt further teaches wherein the unique identifier is associated with a computer-generated readable indicia captured by the user input device using an image capturing component associated therewith (Goodsit: pars 0058-0059, 0100, the code or patten, such as a Quick-Response (QR) code [i.e., computer-readable indicia], is scanned for authorizing the request, by a camera of the user device, as a capturing an image).
As to claim 6, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 5,
Goodsitt further teaches wherein the unique identifier obtained through the computer-generated readable indicia is compared and/ or matched to identifiers stored in the database to verify the resource distribution device (Goodsit: pars 0005, 0018, 0054, the system verifies that the received pattern/code/QR-code matches the pattern/code/QR-code that was provided by the public terminal).
As to claim 7, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 1,
Goodsitt and Arora further teaches wherein execution of the executed action request on the resource distribution device is enabled via entry of authentication credentials on the user input device (Goodsit: pars 0005,0023, receives user password input and matches with password stored associated with user profile. Arora: pars 0023, 0025, user/consumer uses user device to transmit payment credential with the payment request for the system to process the authorization).
As to claim 8, Goodsitt teaches the combination of Goodsitt and Arora teaches the system of Claim 1,
Goodsitt and Arora further teaches wherein the executed action is a deposit or withdrawal of resources from the resource distribution device (Goodsit: par 0073, the public terminal being an ATM, where an activity is a request for withdrawal of currency. Arora: pars 0006-0007, 0017, authorization request for a payment transaction, which includes, product or service purchases, credit purchases, debit transactions, fund transfers, account withdrawals, etc.).
As to claim 9, the claim is directed to a computer program product, and the scope of the claim limitations is similar to the scope of system claim 1, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
As to claims 10-15, the claim limitations are similar to the claims 2-7, respectively, and therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 2-7.
As to claim 16, the claim is directed to a method, and the scope of the claim limitations is similar to the scope of system claim 1, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
As to claims 17-20, the claim limitations are similar to the claims 2-5, respectively, and therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 2-5.
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 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 Jahangir Kabir whose telephone number is (571) 270-3355. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00- 5:00 Mon-Thu.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAHANGIR KABIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439