DETAILED ACTION
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 responsive to claims filed 12/29/2025 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 18/124182 filed 12/29/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-21 have been examined with this office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of transaction/insurance transactions without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system, and independent claim 10 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method and independent claim 20 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer readable medium storing instruction to perform functions/steps. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer-implemented method for providing a secure virtual mall within a virtual environment, comprising: receiving, via one or more processors of a mall server, directly from the user device user authentication credentials associated with a user that is attempting to interact with the secure virtual mall within the virtual environment; authenticating, via the one or more processors of the mall servers, the user based upon the user authentication credentials; in response to the authentication of the user device, establishing, via the one or more processors, a secure connection between the user device and the one or more processors, wherein the establishing the secure connection includes providing a layer of security within the secure connection between the user device and the secure virtual mall, wherein the secure connection comprises a communication path that does not traverse a virtual environment server; and processing, via the one or more processors, a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and a vender and is facilitated via the secure connection;
processing, via the one or more processors of the mall server, a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and a vender server and is facilitated via the secure connection, and wherein processing the transaction comprises: receiving, via the one or more processors of the mall server, vender authentication credentials from the vender server; and authenticating, via the one or more processors of the mall server, the vender server based upon the vender authentication credentials”.
Claim 15 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer system configured to provide a secure virtual mall within a virtual environment, the computer system comprising one or more processors of the mall server configured to: receive, directly from a user device, user authentication credentials associated with a user that is attempting to interact with the secure virtual mall within the virtual environment; authenticate the user based upon the user authentication credentials; in response to the authentication of the user device, establish a secure connection between the user device and the one or more processors, wherein the establishing the secure connection includes providing a layer of security within the secure connection between the user device and the secure virtual mall, wherein the secure connection comprises a communication path that does not traverse a virtual environment server; and processes a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and a vender and is facilitated via the secure connection;
processes a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and the vender server and is facilitated via the secure connection, and wherein the one or more processors of the mall server are configured to process the transaction by: receiving vender authentication credentials from the vender server; and authenticating the vender server based upon the vender authentication credentials”.
Claim 18 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer device configured to provide a secure virtual mall within a virtual environment, the computer device comprising:one or more processors; andone or more memories coupled to the one or more processors; the one or more memories including computer executable instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive user authentication credentials associated with a user that is attempting to interact with the secure virtual mall within the virtual environment; authenticate the user based upon the user authentication credentials; in response to the authentication of the user device, establish a secure connection between the user device and the one or more processors, wherein the establishing the secure connection includes providing a layer of security within the secure connection between the user device and the secure virtual mall; and processes a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and a vender and is facilitated via the secure connection;
processes a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and a vender and is facilitated via the secure connection, and the one or more memories including computer-executable instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors of the mall server to process the transaction by: receiving vender authentication credentials from the vender server; and
authenticating the vender server based upon the vender authentication credentials”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Transaction/insurance transactions are fundamental economic practices long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer; a virtual environment; one or more processors; user device; establishing a secure connection between the user device and the one or more processors; a layer of security; one or more memories; wherein the secure connection comprises a communication path that does not traverse a virtual environment server. However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer ([0028]); a virtual environment ([0028] “…term virtual environment should be understood to refer to a virtual world, such as a metaverse, a virtual game world, an augmented-reality based virtual world, etc); one or more processors ([0037]); user device ([0033] “For instance, a user 170 may wish to participate in the virtual environment. To do so, the user 170 may use a user device 175 ( e.g., a virtual reality (VR) headset, a computer, a tablet, a smartphone, an augmented reality (AR) headset, etc.)”); establishing a secure connection between the user device and the one or more processors ([0056-0059]); a layer of security ([0056-0059]); one or more memories ([0218]); wherein the secure connection comprises a communication path that does not traverse a virtual environment server ([0056] [0103] [0111] [0116] [0152] [0161]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3, 6, 11-14, and 19 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 4, 5, 7-10, 16, 17, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
a virtual reality (VR) headset (claim 4, 16, and 20);
biometric data automatically gathered by the VR headset (claim 5);
a firewall (claim 7, 8, 17);
a security key (claim 9);
decrypting a digital signature applied using a public key of a public/private key pair (claim 10).
However, the specification description of the additional elements a virtual reality (VR) headset ([0028] [0032]); biometric data automatically gathered by the VR headset ([0035] [0049] “…In some examples, where the authentication credentials comprise biometric data, the user device 175 (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, AR headset or glasses, VR headset, smart glasses, etc.) automatically gathers the biometric data ( e.g., through a camera or a fingerprint reader of the user device 175), and sends the biometric data to the virtual environment server…”); a firewall ([0057]); a security key ([0049] The user device 175 also sends (315) authentication credentials to the virtual environment server 160 (e.g., to allow the user 170 to log into the virtual environment). The authentication credentials may comprise any authentication information. For example, the authentication credentials may comprise a user name, password, biometric data (e.g., fingerprint data, facial recognition data, etc.), twofactor authentication information (as will be further described below), a security key that was previously sent to the user device 175, etc. In some examples, where the authentication credentials comprise biometric data, the user device 175 (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, AR headset or glasses, VR headset, smart glasses, etc.) automatically gathers the biometric data ( e.g., through a camera or a fingerprint reader of the user device 175), and sends the biometric data to the virtual environment server 160 at 315” [0089]); decrypting a digital signature applied using a public key of a public/private key pair ([0199]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
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.
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 1, 3-6, 9-10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand (PGPub Document No. 20170364920) in view of
As per claim 1, Anand teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a secure virtual mall (e-commerce transactions) within a virtual environment ([0002] [0004] [0027]), comprising: receiving, via one or more processors of a mall server, directly from a user device, user authentication credentials associated with a user that is attempting to interact with the secure virtual mall within the virtual environment ([0058] “In some embodiments, the authentication computer 114 may receive and process the partial biometric template and personal authentication information to authenticate the transaction…” [0077] “…In some embodiments, in order to increase security, access credentials may not be stored at the virtual reality hardware 300. Instead, the access credentials can be temporarily retrieved from a remote server or cloud server when a transaction is being performed. In some embodiments, the authentication module 300L may store and utilize one or more private-public key pairs to sign authorization requests for authorization by a processing network that issued or maintains the private-public key pairs. In some embodiments, the authentication module 300L merely requests authentication, via the processor 300A and the services communication application 300N, from an authentication computer and communicates the generated partial biometric template and personal authentication information…”); authenticating, via the one or more processors of the mall server, the user based upon the user authentication credentials ([0058] “…the authentication computer 114 may authenticate the transaction by decrypting the salted partial biometric template and comparing it to the biometric template associated with the user that was generated during the enrollment process.…”); and processing, via the one or more processors of the mall server, a transaction of the user device occurring in the secure virtual mall, wherein the transaction is between the user device and a vender server and is facilitated via the secure connection, and wherein processing the transaction comprises ([0027] “…A user can experience greater convenience when attempting to conduct a transaction in the virtual world as the user is not required to leave the virtual world to complete the transaction. Instead, biometric samples of the user are obtained from the virtual reality hardware without requiring further input from the user…” [0059] “…As described above, the user 102 does not have to leave the virtual reality environment 108 to authenticate themselves as part of the transaction process but instead the hardware and software associated with presenting the virtual reality environment 108 captures and transmits the appropriate information to the authentication computer 114. Further, the capture and generation of the partial biometric templates can be performed in real time so that the user can complete the transaction in an efficient manner that does not require them to leave the virtual reality environment 108 and they can continue to browse and interact with said environment” [0060] “… The resource provider computer 110 may receive an authentication response message generated by the authentication computer 114 when the transaction involves access to secure data or a secure area within the virtual reality environment or other venues in the real world” [0041-0042] “[0041] “An "access device" can include a device that allows for communication with a remote computer, and can include a device that enables a user to make a payment to a merchant in exchange for goods or services. An access device can include hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Examples of access devices include point-of-sale (POS) terminals, mobile phones, tablet computers, laptop or desktop computers, user device computers, user devices, etc.”
[0042] “An "application" may be computer code or other data stored on a computer readable medium (e.g., memory element or secure element) that may be executable by a processor to complete a task. Examples of an application include a biometric sample application, an authentication application, or a processing network application. An application may include a mobile application. An application may be designed to streamline the purchase and payment process or the process for accessing a secure area or secure data. An application may enable a user to initiate a transaction with a resource provider or merchant and authorize the transaction.”
[0044] “A "resource provider" may be an entity that can provide a resource such as goods, services, information, and/or access. Examples of resource providers include merchants, data providers, transit agencies, governmental entities, venue and dwelling operators, etc.”); and wherein processing the transaction comprises: receiving, via the one or more processors of the mall server, vender authentication credentials from the vender server ([0002] [0004] [0027] [0084] “The process 400 may include the authentication computer requesting that the transaction be authorized ( check available funds are available) by providing an authentication request message to the transport computer 402 (which may be an acquirer computer) at 426. The transport computer may be associated with the authentication computer or resource provider computer, and may manage authorization requests on behalf of either computer” [0085]); and authenticating, via the one or more processors of the mall server, the vender server based upon the vender authentication credentials ([0058] “…the authentication computer 114 may authenticate the transaction by decrypting the salted partial biometric template and comparing it to the biometric template associated with the user that was generated during the enrollment process.…” ).
Anand further teaches ([0028] “…a transaction may be authorized for secure access of data or to a secure area” [0067 0081] “…Messages between the computers, networks, and devices may be transmitted using secure communications protocols…” [0078] “…The token can be used in place of or represent the access credential and add an additional layer of security to the sensitive payment account information of the user …”). However, Anand does not explicitly teach in response to the authentication of the user device, establishing, via the one or more processors, a secure connection between the user device and the one or more processors, wherein the establishing the secure connection includes providing a layer of security within the secure connection between the user device and the secure virtual mall.
Polasa teaches in response to the authentication of the user device (COMPUTING DEVICE SYSTEM [Figure 1, element 400]), establishing, via the one or more processors, a secure connection between the user device and the one or more of the mall server processors (INTERCONNECTION AND TRANSITION SYSTEM [Figure 1, element 300]) (computer device system [Figure 1, element 400]) ([0047] “…The system store the 'n' set of user credentials tagged to the meta ID in a data
repository (e.g., data repository 390)” where the data repository 390 is part of the INTERCONNECTION AND TRANSITION SYSTEM), wherein the establishing the secure connection includes providing a layer of security within the secure connection between the user device and the secure virtual mall ([0048-0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the interconnection, translation and transition between disparate digital ecosystems as found in Polasa within the device layer of Anand in order to increase the security of the virtual platform using well known fire security techniques. 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.
As per claim 3,
Anand teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user is associated with a user profile that indicates: a name of the user; past purchase information of past purchases that the user has made within the secure virtual mall; and an amount of currency in a virtual wallet of the user ([0071]).
As per claim 4,
Anand teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset ([0031]).
As per claim 5,
Anand teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the user authentication credentials comprise biometric data automatically gathered (biometric sample) by the VR headset ([0007] “…The computer-implemented method further comprises obtaining, by the processor, a first biometric sample from the user interacting with the virtual reality hardware…” [0031]).
As per claim 6,
Anand does not teach the claim limits.
Polasa teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the transaction comprises a purchase of: virtual real estate within the virtual environment; real-world real estate; a virtual vehicle within the virtual environment; and/or a real-world vehicle (car [0050-0051] [0053]).
As per claim 9,
Anand teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein authenticating the user comprises: sending, via the one or more processors of the mall server, a security key to the user device to use as the authentication credentials ; in response to the user interacting with the secure virtual mall, receiving, via the one or more processors of the mall server, from the user device, the security key; and verifying, via the one or more processors of the mall server, the received security key matches the sent security key ([0058] [0077]).
As per claim 10,
Anand teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein facilitating the transaction via the secure connection comprises: decrypting, via the one or more processors, a digital signature applied to communications received from the user device using a public key of a public/private key pair associated with the user device ([0025] [0058]).
As per claim 14,
Anand teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the transaction comprises: determining, via the one or more processors, that transaction information from the user device matches transaction information from the vender server; and in response to the determination that the transaction information from the user device matches the transaction information from the vender server, processing, via the one or more processors of the mall server, the transaction ([0085] “…The process 400 may include the transaction processing computer 404 providing an authorization response message to the resource provider computer 110 at 430. In some embodiments, the resource provider computer 110 may proceed with completing the transaction upon receiving the authorization response message. In embodiments, the transaction processing computer 404 may provide the authorization response message directly to the virtual reality hardware 104 to enable the virtual reality hardware 104 to transmit an access credential to resource provider computer 110 to complete the transaction…”).
As per claim 15, Anand teaches a computer system configured to provide a secure virtual mall within a virtual environment, the computer system comprising one or more processors of a mall server ([0002] [0004] [0027] [0080])
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 16,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 4.
As per claim 18, Anand teaches a computer device configured to provide a secure virtual mall within a virtual environment, the computer device comprising: one or more processors of a mall server; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors; the one or more memories including computer executable instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to ([0002] [0004] [0027] [0042] [0060] [0080]).
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 19,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 2.
As per claim 20,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 4.
Claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand (PGPub Document No. 20170364920) in view of Polasa (PGPub Document No. 20240037196) in further view of Feldman (PGPub Document No. 20170032466).
As per claim 7,
Anand and Polasa do not teach the claim limits.
Feldman teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the layer of security comprises a firewall ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the firewall as found in Feldman within the device layer of Anand in order to increase the security of the virtual platform using well known fire security techniques. 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.
As per claim 8,
Anand and Polasa do not teach the claim limits.
Feldman teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the firewall is configured to block communications outside of the secure connection related to the transaction ([0044]).
As per claim 11,
Anand and Polasa do not teach the claim limits.
Feldman teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein processing the transaction comprises underwriting an insurance product related to the transaction that the vender server is selling ([0022]).
As per claim 12,
Anand and Polasa do not teach the claim limits.
Feldman teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the transaction comprises a purchase of virtual real estate and/or a virtual item within the virtual environment; and processing the transaction further includes creating a backup copy of the virtual real estate and/or virtual item ([0022] “…store information into and/or retrieve information from the data store…“ [0072]).
As per claim 13,
Anand and Polasa do not teach the claim limits.
Feldman teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, periodically creating backup copies of items sold by the vender server ([0017] “…periodically transmit (e.g., on a daily basis) information about a virtual home to the virtual home platform…”).
As per claim 17,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to patent eligibility have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The examiner maintains that there is no improvement to a technology or to the computer itself. The claims merely use a mall server instead of a virtual environment server for authentication. Regarding snooping which is an abstract idea, the specification [0056 0095 0103 0111 0116 0152 0161] makes clear that on certain embodiments “In some examples, the secure connection comprises a communication path that does not traverse the virtual environment server”. Thus, using the mall server for authentication is described at a high level of generality in the specification and appears to be a design choice and not an improvement to a technology. Thus, unlike Finjan which made an improvement to an underlying technology, the present application merely applies a technological environment to an abstract idea. As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The examiner contends that the “resource provider computer” in Anand maps to the claim’s vendor server. Thus, the examiner maintains that the prior art of record teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
01/15/2026