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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Pending claims: 1-7, 9-17, 19-22
Independent claims: 1, 11, 21
Amended claims: 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 21
Canceled claims: 8, 18 (previously canceled)
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
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.
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 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 1-7,9,10, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White 20130138518 in view of Elliott 20150088676 in view of Argue 20140122268 in view of Thackston 20160036588
Regarding Claim 1,
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions
that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to
perform functions comprising:
receiving, at a sales computer system of a retailer to process sales from a
wireless network communications unit, … and a retail
environment code associated with a retail environment of the retailer, the user device
identification code having been received at the wireless network communications unit in
response to the user device receiving a beacon wirelessly transmitted from the wireless
network communications unit that includes the retail environment code;
associating the user device with the retail environment in response to receiving,
at the sales computer system, the user device identification code and the retail environment
code;
receiving, at the sales computer system, an order from the user device; and
authorizing payment, by the sales computer system, for the order utilizing a
method of payment stored in a user account,
White is directed to a system for customer to pay a restaurant using a mobile device. (White, abstract, summary, “[0005] In one example embodiment, the subject disclosure may be a system including a point-of-sale (POS) terminal in communication with a wireless communication device of a customer, and a logic stored on the POS terminal for receiving a request at the POS terminal from the wireless communication device, the request including an identifier of a location at a premise associated with, for example served by, the POS terminal, the identifier received by the wireless communication device of the customer, the location being one of a plurality of locations at the premise associated with the POS terminal, and responding to the request.
[0006] In another example embodiment, the subject disclosure may be a method including receiving a request at a point-of-sale (POS) terminal from a wireless communication device, the request including an identifier of a location at a premise associated with, for example served by, the POS terminal, the identifier received by the wireless communication device of a customer, the location being one of a plurality of locations at the premise associated with the POS terminal, and responding to the request.”). White discloses that the customer device may establish a session with the restaurant via a table beacon to place orders and pay. (White, para 0046, “[0046] In another example embodiment, each table at a restaurant may include a wireless tag, such as an NFC tag, bar code including an identifier, smart card, or more elaborate hardware such as a processor, memory, and transceiver for communicating with a wireless communication device. Including one or more wireless tags with the table may allow a customer to sit down at the table, use his wireless communication device to read the wireless tag, and launch a browser or application session for the restaurant. Using the wireless communication device, the customer can see a menu, place an order, summon a waiter, pay the bill, etc., for the whole table, or for his seat. For instance, example embodiments enable bills to be split among the people seated at different seats at the table, or pay the bill in portions. These example embodiments are particularly useful in situations where chairs change place frequently. Other example embodiments couple wireless tags to individual placements at each table in a restaurant.”)
wherein the user account is associated with a
user, and comprises the method of payment and a first authorization code, and wherein
authorizing the payment further comprises:
(White, para 0071, “When My Debit Card XXX222 is selected, security entry 1284 appears requiring a PIN to be entered. Once a PIN is entered, OK button 1285 may be activated to complete the transaction. If the customer does not wish to complete the transaction, then Cancel button 1286 may be activated, which may take the customer back to the checkout screen, as in FIG. 11. Real credit card and bank account numbers need not be stored on the device. Instead, temporary or random unique numbers may be issued by an application server on the network and provided to digital wallet application 1282. Other techniques for concealing sensitive account information will become apparent to those having ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject disclosure.)
and when the first authorization code stored in the database matches an authorization code entered by the user
(White, para 0065, “[0065] The customer may pay using a credit card, digital wallet, or any other form of electronic payment on the wireless communication device. The customer may submit any required payment information, such as credit card numbers, PIN numbers, passwords, etc. using a browser, application interface, etc. Upon receipt of the payment information, the POS terminal may complete the transaction by communicating with financial institutions such as bank servers and credit card servers to effect payment.”)
White does not explicitly disclose
a user device identification code
Elliott is directed toa system for ordering goods at a merchant or restaurant. (Elliott, abstract). Elliott discloses that a customer/user session may be identified in part through the user device name. (Elliott, para 0080, “[0080] In various embodiments, multiple POS from different geographic locations, may communicate with the POSNES system. In operation, user 518 may be associated with POS1 508 via the user's computing device such as a tablet or a smartphone using a Quick Response Code (QRC). The QRC may be a barcode, a number, an image, a hologram, or other suitable identifier associated with a customer station, such as a table in a restaurant, that may be scanned with a smartphone to start the process of using the extended and/or online services offered by a commercial establishment. In some embodiments, the QRC may be a locally unique (within the business establishment) identifier, while in other embodiments, the QRC may be a Globally Unique ID (GUID) generated based on one or a combination of time-stamp, location, device name, network ID, a customer session ID, and the like.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine White with the identifier of Elliott with the motivation of resolving customer identification ambiguity. Id.
White does not explicitly disclose
if the authorization code is associated with two or more mobile devices concurrently present at the retail environment:
requesting entry of a second authorization code associated with the user device; and authorizing the payment when the second authorization code matches a stored second authorization code.
Argue is directed to a system for identifying a customer at a POS transaction. (Argue, abstract) . Argue discloses identification of a customer device in a transaction, but requesting additional information if ambiguity exists in the identification. (Argue, para 0068-72, “[0068] In selected embodiments, certain probabilities of an erroneous determination of identification may be persistent. That is, in certain embodiments, it may be difficult or impossible to remove all chance of an erroneous conclusion that a particular transaction corresponds to a particular computing device. However, in such embodiments, steps may be taken to ensure that sufficient evidence is in place to conclude that a proper identification has been determined or deduced. [0069] For example, to strengthen a particular identification, character strings, location data, and the like of additional transactions, POS systems 10, or computing devices may be taken into account. In certain embodiments, the number and typically locations of computing devices linked to identical character strings may be taken into account. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, a computer system may consider location data reported by other computing devices in the vicinity of (e.g., same store as) a particular POS system 10 within a given period of time, the character strings linked to other computing devices in the vicinity of a particular POS system 10 within a given period of time, character strings concurrently derived from other POS systems 10 in the vicinity of the particular POS system 10, or the like or a combination or sub-combination thereof.
[0072] When a comparison 94 reveals that the data is insufficient to identify an appropriate computing device, a computer system may obtain 104 additional information to resolve any relevant ambiguity. For example, a computer system may request a customer to type in a number (e.g., type a telephone number into a card reader 18b), enter a code, number, or the like provided on a customer-facing display 20a into an application running on his or her computing device, or the like. If additional, clarifying information is obtained 104, then the relevant POS transaction may be completed 96 and the method 80 may continue as described hereinabove. Alternatively, if no additional information is obtained 104 (e.g., no additional information is requested or additional information is requested by not timely received), then the POS transaction may be completed 106 and a POS system 10 may simply print 102 a paper receipt.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine White and Elliott with the additional authorization of Argue with the motivation of resolving customer identification ambiguity. Id.
White does not explicitly disclose
receiving from the user device an encrypted time value generated using a
shared encryption key,
decrypting a time value from the encrypted time value, and
authorizing the payment when a difference between the time value and
an internal clock of the sales computer system is within a predetermined threshold, …
, and
Thackston is directed to a system for verifying user identity. (Thackston, abstract). Thackston discloses that user access of transaction authorization could be based on decrypting encrypted timestamps. (Thackston, para 0027, “[0027] According to first aspects of the invention, a computer-implemented method may provide third party user authentication for a first party user attempting to access a network service provided by a second party. Such methods may include one or more of registering a network service; registering a user device with a first user; generating a first encryption key associated with the user device; receiving a first encrypted check message from the user device; receiving a second encrypted check message from the network service; decrypting the first check message and the second check message using the first encryption key; comparing timestamps included in the first check message and the second check message; authorizing at least one of a network access or a transaction between the first user and the network service based at least in part on a difference between the timestamps being less than a threshold; and/or sending an authorization message to the network service based on said authorizing.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine White, Elliott and Argue with the encryption of Thackston with the motivation of securely authorizing transactions. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the retail environment comprises (i) a delivery
vehicle or (ii) a physical store.
See prior art rejection of claim 1. The examiner interprets a restaurant to be a type of physical store.
Regarding Claim 3, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 1.
White does not explicitly disclose
allowing the user to enter, on an electronic device at the retail environment, a second
authorization code that matches the first authorization code stored in the database;
receiving the retail environment code and the user device identification code; and
retrieving, from a database, the retail environment associated with the retail
environment code.
Elliott discloses that a user/customer may need to provide credentials to access a payment system. (Elliott, para 0078, “[0078] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the interactions between the customer/user, the POS, and the POSNES system may take various forms. One form of such interactions is described below. In various embodiments, the POSNES may be responsible for accepting normalized requests from the client application, forming POS requests specific to the authorized POS system, parsing the response, and returning a normalized response to the client application. Before the ordering, payment, and other POS operations services offered by the client application can be used, a user may first have to be authorized to order on and pay for their check at the restaurant. This may be done by submitting authorization information (for example, access codes, passwords, GPS coordinates, etc.) of the requesting mobile application to the POSNES (or indirectly through the associated POS). The POSNES system may either accept or reject the credentials, and send the appropriate response back to the client application.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine White, Argue and Thackston with the second authorization of Elliott with the motivation of securely authorizing transactions. Id.
Regarding Claim 4, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 3,
wherein the electronic device comprises: (i)
a keypad coupled to the sales computer system or (ii) a mobile device carried by the user.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding White
Regarding Claim 5, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 1,
wherein the retail environment further
comprises a plurality of communication devices, and wherein each communication device of
the plurality of communication devices is configured to wirelessly transmit the signal.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding White
Regarding Claim 6, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 5,
wherein wirelessly transmitting the signal
to the user device further comprises:
wirelessly transmitting the signal, using at least one of the plurality of communication
devices, to the user device, wherein the at least one of the plurality of communication devices
uses at least one of near field communications (NFC) or a wireless local area network (WLAN) to
transmit the signal.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding White
Regarding Claim 7, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 1,
wherein the sales computer system
comprises:
a computer located at the retail environment; or
a server in communication with the computer via a computer network.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding White
Regarding Claim 9, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 1,
wherein:
the two or more mobile devices comprises a cell phone; and
the second authorization code comprises a telephone number associated with the cell
phone.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Argue.
Regarding Claim 10, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the system of claim 1,
wherein authorizing the payment comprises:
utilizing the method of payment stored in the user account when:
an entered authorization code matches the first authorization code, as stored; or
the user device identification code is associated with the retail environment.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding White
Regarding Claims 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21
See prior art rejections of claims 1-7,9,10,1
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Elliott 20140244504 in view of Argue in view of Thackston in view of AAPA.
Regarding Claim 22, White, Elliott, Argue and Thackston disclose the medium of claim 21.
Taveau does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the retail environment comprises a delivery vehicle.
AAPA teaches that it is old and well known for a retail environment to be a vehicle. (ie. A merchant could sell food via food truck delivery vehicle which would comprise POS terminals much the same as a stationary restaurant.) It can be seen that all the claimed elements are taught by Oakes, Owen, Argue, Thackston or AAPA. A food truck taught by official notice does not change the functions taught by Oakes, Owen, Argue or Thackston. Customer checkout could occur independent of whether the merchant a mobile or stationary store. Since the function of the elements in Oakes, Owen, Argue, Thackston and AAPA do not interfere with each other the results would be predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of White, Elliott , Argue or Thackston a food truck as taught by AAPA since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights