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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 9, 11, 18, and 22 have been cancelled, and Claims 23-25 have been added; therefore, Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-21, and 23-25 are currently pending in application 18/100,984.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains repeated words, “wherein, wherein a length of time of the predefined period of time is based at least in part on a quantity of the data intended to be transferred in the data transfer session.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16 have been amended as follows, “after transmitting the notification, preventing the first electronic device from interacting with the data transfer session.”
However, Independent Claims 1 and 10 include the following element, “when the first electronic device is free of the second user input interacting with the data interaction session following the first user input for the predefined period of time, transmit, by the system to the first electronic device, a notification including a selectable option to continue the data transfer session.”
The Examiner is unclear as to how an option is selectable if the first electronic device is prevented from interacting with the data transfer.
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 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Castinado et al. (US20180089679 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 10, and 19, Castinado 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 Fig.1-3; Claim 1 - System, memory device, processing device), 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 Para 0048, “…determine that a trigger has occurred or that a plurality of predetermined triggering events have occurred. In some embodiments, the user device of the user is located within a physical boundary, such as within a financial institution physical location (i.e., a branch). In other embodiments, the trigger may include or consist of determining that a transaction has been successfully completed, such as the successful completion of the deposit of a check. In some embodiments, for example, the successful deposit of a check is performed through a mobile deposit, and once the mobile deposit has been completed, the system initiates a communication to the mobile device of the user indicating that the user has an incomplete action that may now be completed. Thus, the system may initiate a partially completed resource triggering and completion process. In some embodiments, more than one triggering event must take place before the process moves to the next step, for example, moving to step(s) 204, 205, 206, 207 and/or 208, each discussed below. For example, in some embodiments, two or more transactions must be completed successfully before triggering the partially completed resource completion process.”; Para 0052, “A partially completed action or a triggering event may be or include various actions, transactions, events or the like. For example, an attempt to add a new payee or performing some other action within online banking or a mobile application may be a partially completed action or a triggering event. Similarly, an incomplete online mortgage application may be a partially completed action or a completed online mortgage application may be a triggering event. Further, attempting to send a person to person payment may be a partially completed action or completing a person to person payment may be a triggering event”);
determining, by the computer system, whether the first electronic device receives a second user input interacting with the data transfer session following the first user input for a predefined period of time; and when the first electronic device is free of the second user input interacting with the data interaction session following the first user input for the predefined period of time, transmitting, by the computer system to the first electronic device, a notification including a selectable option to continue the data transfer session (See at least Para 0050, “In some embodiments, some or all the triggering events must occur in time proximity to the partially completed resource process, that is, the process to completed the partially completed action (e.g., a mobile deposit) must occur within a predetermined time of the triggering events. For example, if a qualifying triggering event of a completed mobile deposit occurs, then the customer may have one (1) hour to complete a previous partially completed transaction.”; Para 0073, “In various embodiments, once a triggering event or triggering events trigger the system to attempt to complete the partially completed action, the system may send the user a notification or multiple notifications indicating the user has a partially completed action. In some cases, the notification(s) may include information about the partially completed action and/or information or link(s) to re-initiate completion of the partially completed action.”)
As per Claims 6 and 15, Castinado discloses wherein the notification comprises information regarding what caused the interaction to become stale (See at least Para 0053, “The next step, as represented by block 204, is the optional step of providing information related to the resource or the failed action to the third party and/or to the user. This information may include, for example, a user device identifier, a user identifier, information regarding the transaction or otherwise. In other embodiments, as discussed above, the user device may provide its identifier, the failed transaction identifier, a user identifier or other information to the FI system, rather than the FI system providing some or all that information to the user (through the user device or otherwise, such as through another device).”).
As per Claims 7 and 16, Castinado discloses after transmitting the notification, preventing the first electronic device from interacting with the data transfer session (See at least Para 0073, “… re-initiation may be disabled a certain period of time from when one or more notifications are sent to the user.”).
As per Claims 8 and 17, Castinado 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 Para 0073, Multiple triggering events/ Multiple notifications - …”re-initiation may be disabled a certain period of time from initial access to the partially completed action by the user (i.e., when the user initially attempted to complete the action but the action remained incomplete).”).
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 Castinado in view of Gurunathan et al. (US 2020/0143375 A1).
As per Claims 3-5, 12-14, and 20-21, while Castinado does broadly disclose a predetermined time-out threshold (See at least Para 0050, “In some embodiments, some or all the triggering events must occur in time proximity to the partially completed resource process, that is, the process to completed the partially completed action (e.g., a mobile deposit) must occur within a predetermined time of the triggering events. For example, if a qualifying triggering event of a completed mobile deposit occurs, then the customer may have one (1) hour to complete a previous partially completed transaction”), Castinado 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 Castinado, 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 9/24/2025, with respect to Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-21, and 23-25, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. The rejection will remain as NON-FINAL, based on the new rejections above. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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.
Wilson et al. (US 10,423,948 B1) – See at least Figs. 3-5B, and C23L21-60, “(90) In FIG. 5B, the second user computing device can choose whether to continue with the payment option in step 526. As an example, FIG. 3 illustrates the giving a second user computing device an option press Send button 320 or Cancel button 318. Optionally, the payment-service-system server can timeout if the second user computing device does not respond within a predetermined time, e.g., 2 minutes, in which case the payment transaction can terminate in step 528. Similarly, if the second user presses the Cancel button 318, the process can continue to step 528, which terminates the payment transaction. (Note that the message may alternatively go to the software agent first). If the second user presses the Send button 320, the second user computing device can send an acceptance message to the messaging-service server in step 530, which then forwards the message to the payment-service-system server. (Note that the message may alternatively go to the software agent first.) The payment-service-system server can generate a payment transaction or suggestion to complete a payment transaction in step 532. Also in step 532, the payment-service-system server can verify that the sender of the message is the person that is sending the funds. Because at least two parties, a sender and a receiver, are part of the group messaging session, the payment-service-system server receives messages from both users. Therefore, as a layer of security, the payment-service-system server can ignore messages masquerading as selections from the recipient, and only continue if the payment-service-system server receives a response from the appropriate party. The payment-service-system server can transmit the payment transaction to the software agent, in step 534, which can then transform the payment transaction into a human-readable form. For example, if the payment transaction includes an amount, a recipient, and deposit or decline options, the software agent can transform these fields into a message, such as, “Would you like to deposit or decline the $20 from Steve?” The software agent can then transmit the payment transaction to the messaging-service server in step 536, which can then forward it to the second user computing device in step 538, and to the first user computing device in step 540.”)
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.
December 24, 2025
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629