Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
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 in reply to the Amendment filed on January 9, 2026.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claims 2-21 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260311 for references purposes only.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Postrel (US 2016/0232556), in view of Regmi et al. (US 2009/0271275), and further in view of Purves et al. (US 2013/0054454).
Claims 2, 9, 16
Postrel discloses:
transmitting, by a user device (user computer, see [0185]) and via an interface of a merchant device (merchant computer, see [0185]), a request to settle a transaction (request to purchase an item, see [0185]);
receiving, by the user device and from the merchant device, a network location of an access control server (user is redirected from merchant server to trading server, see figure 7);
accessing (“log in”, see [0183]), by the user device (user computer, see [0183]), the network location of the access control server (trading server computer, see [0183]);
displaying by the user device (user computer, see [0190]), an interface (a user interface, see [0190) of the access control server (trading server computer, see [0190]) based at least in part on the request to settle the transaction and the user device accessing the network location of the access control server,
wherein the interface (interface, see [0210]) of the access control server includes a request for a security credential (“log in”, login id and password, see [0183, 0210]) associated with an account (user’s account, see [0210]);
wherein the interface of the access control server includes an offer to modify the transaction (use 5,000 reward points to reduce price from $75 to $25, see [0074]).
Postrel does not disclose:
Wherein the offer… transaction;
Receiving… transaction.
Regmi teaches:
wherein the offer to modify the transaction (e.g. discount, see [0068]) is selected from a plurality of offers, and wherein the offer is personalized (discount offer modified to 25%, see [0071]) based on a previously completed transaction for the account (historical purchase data, see [0071]) and an offer to modify the previously completed transaction (consumer more likely to respond to a 25% vs. 20% discount, see [0071]);
receiving, based on the security credential associated with the account and the acceptance of the offer to modify the transaction, an indication that the transaction is settled (receipt, see [0079-0080]) according to the modified transaction.
Postrel discloses transmitting a request to settle a transaction, receiving a network location of an access server, accessing the network location, displaying an interface that includes a request for a security credential, transmitting the security credential, and displaying an offer to modify the transaction. Postrel does not disclose personalizing the offer based on a previous transaction and previous offer, and receiving an indication the transaction settled, but Regmi does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method for issuing, aggregating, and redeeming merchant rewards of Postrel with the personalizing the offer based on a previous transaction and previous offer, and receiving an indication the transaction settled of Regmi because 1) a need exists for a reward point system that allows users to exchange reward points earned from various merchants into a reward exchange account (see Postrel [0007]); and 2) a need exists for having a more intelligent tool for providing promotions and advertisements to consumers (see Regmi [0006]). Personalizing the offer based on a previous transaction and previous offer allows for a better suited offer to the consumer. Receiving an indication the transaction settled allows for notification to the consumer.
Postrel in view of Regmi discloses the limitations above. Postrel in view Regmi does not disclose:
wherein submission of the security credential is required to settle the transaction;
transmitting, by the user device to the access control server, the security credential associated with the account and an acceptance of the offer to modify the transaction.
Purves teaches:
wherein submission of the security credential (merchant account or wallet account username and password, see [0068]) is required to settle the transaction;
transmitting, by the user device to the access control server, the security credential associated (merchant account or wallet account username and password, see [0068]) with the account and an acceptance of the offer (offer to exchange points/currency, see [0055]) to modify the transaction.
Postrel in view of Regmi discloses transmitting a request to settle a transaction, receiving a network location of an access server, accessing the network location, displaying an interface that includes a request for a security credential, transmitting the security credential, displaying an offer to modify the transaction, personalizing the offer based on a previous transaction and previous offer, and receiving an indication the transaction settled. Postrel in view of Regmi does not disclose the security credential is required to settle the transaction and transmitting the credential and offer acceptance, but Purves does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method for issuing, aggregating, and redeeming merchant rewards of Postrel, in view of Regmi, with the security credential required to settle the transaction and transmitting the credential and offer acceptance of Purves because a need exists for allowing consumers to make purchases at e-commerce merchants (see Purves [0004]). Having the security credential required to settle the transaction and transmitting the credential and offer acceptance allows for a secure transaction to occur.
Claims 3, 10, 17
Furthermore, Postrel discloses:
the acceptance of the offer to modify the transaction causes data associated with the account to be modified based on at least one of: an account credit, an amount of rewards points (reduce loyalty account by 5,000 points, see [0074]), or a purchase protection plan.
Claims 4, 11, 18
Furthermore, Postrel discloses:
the transaction comprises a transaction with a merchant of the merchant device (point of sale, POS terminal, see [0144-0146]).
Claims 5, 12, 19
Furthermore, Regmi teaches:
the offer to modify the transaction is further based on historical transaction information that indicates at least one of: a response to an offer to modify a second previously completed transaction, a recent purchase transaction, or a selection of a previous offer to modify a second previously completed transaction (consumer responds to a 25% discount, see [0071]).
Claims 6, 13, 20
Furthermore, Postrel discloses:
the security credential comprises at least one of a password (password, see [0210]), a biometric, an audio input, or a radio frequency identifier (RFID).
Claims 7, 14, 21
Furthermore, Regmi teaches:
the request to settle the transaction is based on a notification (displaying a list of offers, see [0127-0128]) from the merchant device to the user device that indicates information associated with the transaction.
Claims 8, 15
Furthermore, Regmi teaches:
the notification causes the user device to transition from a first state (user interface displaying the list, see [0129]) to a second state (interface element, e.g. “No Thanks” hyperlink, see [0129]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-21 of the instant application is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent 11,107,052.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of US patent 11,107,052.
The instant application is directed to transmitting a request to settle a transaction; receiving a network location of an access control server; accessing the network location of the access control server; displaying an interface of the access control server based at least in part on the request to settle the transaction and accessing the network location, wherein the interface includes a request for a security credential; transmitting the security credential; displaying, based on submission of the security credential, an offer to modify the transaction, wherein the offer is selected from a plurality of offers and the offer is personalized based on a previous transaction and an offer to modify the previous transaction; receiving, based on an acceptance of the offer, an indication that the transaction is settled according to the modified transaction (see claim 2).
US patent 11,107,052 is directed to receiving a first purchase request; confirming an enrollment of the account by requesting a security credential; transmitting a first authorization request to an issuer; receiving a URL that accesses a second access point; receiving a status indicator confirming enrollment; causing a display of the second access point wherein the account holder interacts directly with the issuer via the second access point; the second access point displays a password interface for entering the security credential, and the password interface includes an offer for a discount amount; the second access point receives the security credential and a selection of the offer; receiving a notification of the discount amount, wherein the reduced purchase amount is the full purchase amount minus the discount amount; receiving a second approval of the second authorization; providing the reduced purchase amount to the account holder; and the offer is configured based on a profile including a transactional history (see claims 1, 11, 14).
The instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of US patent 11,107,052 because both encompass a request to settle a transaction; receiving a second access point; causing a display of the second access point; the user interacting with the second access point including entering a security credential and the second access point displaying an interface including an offer, wherein the offer is personalized based on the user profile including a transactional history; selecting the offer; and receiving notification of the discount amount (see claim 2 of instant application and claims 1, 11, and 14 of US patent 11,107,052).
Response to Arguments
103 arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a security credential required to settle the transaction because Postrel discloses a username and password used to log in only.
Examiner disagrees. Postrel discloses a security credential required to settle the transaction (“log in” to the trading server, see [0183, 0210]). Nonetheless, please see revised rejection above.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
element “n. 1. Any stand-alone item within a broader context. For example, a data element is an item of data with the characteristics or properties of a larger set.” Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
interface “n. 1. The point at which a connection is made between two elements so that they can work with each other or exchange information.” Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
processor “(2) (software) A computer program that includes the compiling, assembling, translating, and related functions for a specific programming language, for example, Cobol processor, Fortran processor.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
server “2. On the Internet or other network, a computer or program that responds to commands from a client.” Computer Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1997.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.