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
Claims 2, 9, 11, 18, 22, and 25 have been cancelled; therefore, Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-21, and 23-24 are currently pending in application 18/100,984.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 15-17, 19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reiners et al. (US 20040148259 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 10, and 19, Reiners discloses a computer-implemented method (system)( non-transitory computing-device readable storage medium on which computing-device readable instructions of a program are stored, the instructions, when executed by one or more computing devices, causing the one or more computing devices to perform a method) of transmitting a stale notification using one or more processors (See at least Figs. 1-2, 18-20 and 42; Para 0102-0106), comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, interaction data about a data transfer session of a first electronic device intending to transfer data to a second electronic device, wherein the interaction data includes a first user input provided to the first electronic device with the data transfer session (See at least Figs. 44-48; Para 0111-0112, Para 0137-0139 and Para 0152);
determining, by the computer system, that a time that has elapsed from a last user input associated with the data transfer session has reached a predefined period of time; and transmitting, by the computer system to the first electronic device, a notification including a selectable option to continue the data transfer session based on determining that the time that has elapsed from the last user input associated with the data transfer session has reached the predefined period of time (See at least Figs.42 and Para 0152, “Referring to FIG. 42 of the drawings, reference numeral 223 shows the time-out management log-off process shown in FIG. 20 of the drawings in more detail. As is shown by block 223.1, once a pre-specified time has elapsed in respect of which there has been no activity, the user is warned of this as is shown by block 223.3. The user has an opportunity to reset the system to allow a further time period to elapse as is shown by blocks 223.4 and 223.5. Failing to do this will result in an automatic log-off as is shown by block 223.6.”; Figs.49-51 and Para 0158, “Referring to FIG. 49 of the drawings, the user interface 250 is shown when the activated card time-out warning, described above, with reference to FIG. 42 of the drawings, is shown. The user may be prompted to continue the session with the online card or account activated by pressing the button 267. Referring to FIG. 50 of the drawings, the user interface 250 is shown when the user has extended the activation in excess of a pre-selected upper limit and in which a message showing that the account has automatically been deactivated is shown as is described above with reference to FIG. 26. Referring to FIG. 51 of the drawings, the user interface 250 is shown when the user has timed out or has extended his activation too many times and a forced deactivation has occurred. As is shown in FIG. 52, the user is prompted to press the button 270 and enter a password 243 to re-activate.”)
As per Claims 6 and 15, Reiners discloses wherein the notification comprises information regarding what caused the interaction to become stale (See at least Figs. 51; “Your PSOCA activation has timed-out”).
As per Claims 7 and 16, Reiners discloses after transmitting the notification: initiating a preset timer with an amount of time; and preventing the first electronic device from interacting with the data transfer session after the amount of time has elapsed (See at least Figs.42 and 49-51; Para 0152 and Para 0158).
As per Claims 8 and 17, Reiners discloses determining, by the computer system (one or more computing devices), a third user input selecting the selectable option; in response to the third user input, setting, by the computer system (one or more computing devices), a timer corresponding to a subsequent period of time for further user input prior to the data transfer session being timed out; after transmitting the notification, detecting no user inputs for the subsequent period of time; and transmitting a subsequent notification indicating that the data transfer session has timed out (See at least Figs.42 and 49-51; Para 0152; and Para 0158, “The user may be prompted to continue the session with the online card or account activated by pressing the button 267. Referring to FIG. 50 of the drawings, the user interface 250 is shown when the user has extended the activation in excess of a pre-selected upper limit and in which a message showing that the account has automatically been deactivated is shown as is described above with reference to FIG. 26. Referring to FIG. 51 of the drawings, the user interface 250 is shown when the user has timed out or has extended his activation too many times and a forced deactivation has occurred. As is shown in FIG. 52, the user is prompted to press the button 270 and enter a password 243 to re-activate.”).
As per Claim 23, Reiners discloses wherein the interaction data indicates that: the first user input interacts with a display page displaying the data transfer session (See at least Figs. 44-48).
As per Claim 24, Reiners discloses wherein the interaction data indicates that the first user input is provided to the first electronic device prior to the first electronic device transferring data to the second electronic device (See at least Figs. 44-48; Para 0111-0112, Para 0137-0139 and Para 0152).
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.
Claims 3-5, 12-14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reiners in view of Gurunathan et al. (US 2020/0143375 A1).
As per Reiners 3-5, 12-14, and 20-21, while Reiners does disclose a predetermined time-out threshold (See at least Fig.18 and Para 0158), Reiners fails to expressly disclose various rules correlating the time-out period with data related to triggering events.
However, the analogous art of Gurunathan discloses a financial transaction system that includes a table for depicting a set of predefined rules for determining a timeout period maintained at the server system (See at least Fig.7; Para 0038, “… dynamically changing or adjusting the timeout period based on the authentication option and a set of predefined rules.”; Para 0048, “Moreover, the user 102 may choose an alternate authentication option to override the authentication option selected prior by the user 102 for authenticating the payment transaction. The alternate authentication option may be selected from a remainder of the plurality of authentication options. For example, the user 102 may choose to authenticate the payment transaction using a static password and if the user 102 is not able to recollect the static password from memory, he/she may switch over to authenticate the payment transaction via other options, for example, using the OTP password. In such cases, assuming the static password to be associated with a first timer and the OTP password to be associated with a second timer, the timeout period may be adapted based on the first timer, the second timer or a combination of the first timer and the second timer as defined by a set of predefined rules.”, Number of Inputs Types]; Para 0056, “… In one embodiment, the set of predefined rules are defined based on one or more timers of a plurality of timers. For example, timer 1 may be defined for OTP option, timer 2 may be defined for QR code option and timer 3 may be defined for static password option. …The set of predefined rules is referred for determining a timeout period for authenticating the payment transaction. An example table depicting a sample set of predefined rules is shown and explained with reference to FIG. 7.”; and Para 0057-0060, “[0057] At 216, a timeout period is determined by the issuer server 116 based on the authentication option and the set of predefined rules. In an example embodiment, the issuer server 116 may look up the predefined set of rules based on the authentication option selected by the user 102 to determine the timeout period. The predefined set of rules define the timeout period in form of plurality of timers. Each predefined rule is associated with one or more timers. The plurality of timers may be preset, or customized based on a user preference input. The timeout period indicates a time frame within which the user 102 can authenticate the payment transaction in an authentication session. A simple example of a set of predefined rules may be as follows: [0058] If authentication_option = static password, then timer 1; and [0059] If authentication_option = OTP, then timer 2. [0060] Assuming timer 1=1 minute and timer 2=2 minute and 30 seconds, if the user 102 chooses to authenticate the payment transaction using static password, then the timeout period for the authentication session is defined by the timer 1 of 1 minute. Alternatively, if the user 102 chooses the OTP authentication, the timeout period for the authentication session is defined as 2 minute and 30 seconds. The authentication session expires upon expiry of the timeout period.”, Number of Inputs/ Amount of Data Transferred (Static Character vs. QR vs. OTP Inputs and Data Quantity requirements for each)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included various rules correlating the time-out period with data related to triggering events, as disclosed by Gurunathan in the system disclosed by Reiners, for the advantage of providing a system/ method of transmitting a stale notification using one or more processors with the ability to increase system/ method efficiency and effectiveness by incorporating a variety of rules correlated to the various time-out/ stale notification options (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/2/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-21, and 23-24, have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Hatfield et al. (US 2020/0382520 B1) – Discloses “a method, computer program product, and a system where a processor(s) determine that a user of a given computing device has been authenticated to initiate an application session, that the application session is open, and that the application session has a timeout mechanism triggered by inactivity (i.e., the session not receiving a selection within a first predefined period of time) (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
September 30, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
