Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on March 17, 2026. The Applicants’ Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue at page 8 of Applicants’ Reply dated March 17, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicants’ Reply”) that the motivation to combine Twilley with de Ganon and Narasimhan is improper. The Examiner has indicated that the motivation to combine Twilley was to “allow customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards.” Applicants assert that “de Ganon already allows customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards” because de Ganon discloses “a browser extension system in which a user may select a secure token…to pay for a purchase.” Applicants also assert at page 8 that “Narasimhan also already allows customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards. For example, Narasimhan discloses a purchase recommendation system configured to be employed with a digital wallet application in which funds may be stored and used accordingly, thereby allowing customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards.”
Applicants then assert at page 8 of Applicants’ Reply that because “both de Ganon and Narasimhan already allow customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards, Applicant respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to further modify the combination of de Ganon in view of Narasimhan to achieve the same objective.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2143, “the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.”
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully notes that de Ganon is directed to a browser extension system in which a browser extension server generates a secure token mapped to the financial service account. (See de Ganon, para. [0074]). Narasimhan is directed to a recommendation system that includes a browser toolbar application that displays a user interface within a browser application and that works with a digital wallet. (See Narasimhan, col. 16, lines 10-20, col. 7, line 40 to col. 8, line 2). Twilley is directed to a mobile wallet application in which a user selects a “transact” button and then the mobile wallet sends a request to the financial system/server) which, in response, provisions a one-time payment token to the mobile wallet. (See Twilley, FIG. 3 and associated text; col. 12, lines 40-55). The fact that all three references are directed to secure, cardless payment methods are why they are considered to be analogous art. Further, because they are considered to be analogous art, their combined teachings would have suggested multiple ways of accomplishing cardless payment transactions to a person having ordinary skill in the art and thus it would have been obvious to that person to combine the references for the reason provided by the Examiner, namely to “allow customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards.” (See Twilley, at least col. 1, lines 7-23).
Further, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references must be novel or an improvement over what is taught by either of the references. In fact, per MPEP 2143.01: “The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the claims of a utility patent application were directed to a shoe sole with increased traction having hexagonal projections in a "facing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1196-97, 73 USPQ2d at 1142. The Board combined a design patent having hexagonal projections in a facing orientation with a utility patent having other limitations of the independent claim. 391 F.3d at 1199, 73 USPQ2d at 1144. Applicant argued that the combination was improper because (1) the prior art did not suggest having the hexagonal projections in a facing (as opposed to a "pointing") orientation was the "most desirable" configuration for the projections, and (2) the prior art "taught away" by showing desirability of the "pointing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d at 1145-46. The court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id. (emphasis added).
In other words, the prior art having multiple alternatives for doing the same thing does not discourage the solution claimed, i.e., the combination of the references. Similarly, combining Twilley with de Ganon and Narasimhan provides three ways of providing cardless payment transactions as possible alternatives of one another and does not negate their combination.
Applicants further argue at page 8 of Applicants’ Reply that “rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. Instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that, as discussed above, the motivation to combine the references has been articulated both in the previous office action and below and thus this argument is moot.
Thus, the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-24, 29-32, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0180343 A1 to de Ganon et al. (hereinafter “de Ganon”), in view of US 10,878,477 B2 to Narasimhan et al. (hereinafter “Narasimhan”), and further in view of US 10,977,652 B1 to Twilley et al. (hereinafter “Twilley”).
Claims 21, 29, and 37: de Ganon discloses systems and methods “for a browser extension system” that includes “a browser extension server [that] includes a communication device configured to communicate with a first computing device executing a browser extension application and a web browser application and a second computing device executing an authentication application.” (See de Ganon, at least Abstract). de Ganon further discloses:
loading, by a server, a set of executable codes to a computer device prior to an execution of an instance of a browser application on the computer device (See de Ganon, at least para. [0004], a browser extension application is a software application made to be downloaded by a user and installed on the user’s computing device to offer additional features to the browser; para. [0030], browser extension server provides browser extension application);
during the execution of the instance of the browser application, triggering, by the computer device, a request for a payment token to the server based on a selection…by the user to purchase at least one of the products (See de Ganon, at least FIG. 6A and associated text; para. [0099], web page may be an online retail web page through which a user of the computing device may engage in a purchase transaction to purchase a good from the merchant; para. [00772], browser extension application detects a payment field in a web page; browser extension application provides an indication of the payment field to the browser extension server (i.e., triggers a request); para. [0074], browser extension server generates a secure token mapped to the financial service account); and
during the execution of the instance of the browser application, receiving, by the computer device, the payment token from the server, wherein the payment token is associated with the virtual wallet account, and wherein the payment token is configured to be embedded within a payment payload (See de Ganon, at least para. [0074], browser extension server generates a secure token mapped to the financial service account; para. [0083], browser extension server provides the secure token to the browser extension application and populates the payment field with the secure token; para. [0077], secure token may be a merchant specific token that may only be used with a single merchant).
de Ganon further discloses during the execution of the instance of the browser application, providing, by the set of executable codes, a list of products for purchase…(See de Ganon, at least para. [0087], user computing device provides web page through web browser application; para. [0088], web page may be an online retail web page through which a user of the computing device may engage in purchase transactions to purchase merchant's goods or services).
However, de Ganon does not expressly disclose during the execution of the instance of the browser application, providing, by the set of executable codes, on a toolbar of the browser application, a graphical indicator, wherein the graphical indicator is configured to facilitate interactions with a user of the computer device; and during the execution of the instance of the browser application,…in response to a successful login by the user to a virtual wallet account hosted on the server.
However, Narasimhan discloses systems and methods “for providing purchase recommendations” that includes determining a shopping list including a plurality of items associated with a customer” and “selecting one item from the shopping list based on financial information associated with the customer. (See Narasimhan, at least Abstract). Narasimhan further discloses during the execution of the instance of the browser application, providing, by the set of executable codes, on a toolbar of the browser application, a graphical indicator, wherein the graphical indicator is configured to facilitate interactions with a user of the computer device (See Narasimhan, at least col. 16, lines 10-20, customer device may include one or more toolbar applications which may be used to provide user-side processing for performing desired tasks in response to operations selected by the customer; for example, toolbar application may display a user interface in connection with the browser application); and during the execution of the instance of the browser application,…in response to on a successful login by the user to a virtual wallet account hosted on the server (See Narasimhan, at least col. 7, line 40 to col. 8, line 2, system provider device sends item update requests to merchants after user logs in to an application such as a digital wallet; system displays updated item information for items for purchase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon the ability that during the execution of the instance of the browser application, providing, by the set of executable codes, on a toolbar of the browser application, a graphical indicator, wherein the graphical indicator is configured to facilitate interactions with a user of the computer device; and during the execution of the instance of the browser application,…in response to a successful login by the user to a virtual wallet account hosted on the server as disclosed by Narasimhan 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “ improve the process of providing for the purchase of items that were previously selected but not purchased in online purchase transactions.” (See Narasimhan, at least 50-55).
Neither de Ganon nor Narasimhan expressly discloses that the request for a payment token is based on a selection of the graphical indicator by the user to purchase at least one of the products.
However, Twilley discloses a “financial institution computing system” in which a “transaction circuit receives a transaction request associated with a user computing device” that “specifies a financial account.” (See Twilley, at least Abstract). Twilley further discloses “a mobile wallet transaction. When a user wishes to make a payment at a merchant, for example, the user may access the mobile wallet circuit 212 by entering a PIN or other login credentials.” (See Twilley, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; col. 12, lines 29-39). Twilley further discloses that the mobile transaction may also be an online transaction. (See Twilley, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; col. 12, lines 29-39). Twilley further discloses that the request for a payment token is based on a selection of the graphical indicator by the user to purchase at least one of the products (See Twilley, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; col. 12, lines 40-55, user selects a “transact” button (i.e., a graphical indicator) and then the mobile wallet circuit 212 (located on the mobile device) sends a request to the FI wallet circuit 224 (on the financial system/server) which, in response, provisions a one-time payment token to the mobile wallet circuit 212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan the ability that the request for a payment token is based on a selection of the graphical indicator by the user to purchase at least one of the products as disclosed by Twilley 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards. (See Twilley, at least col. 1, lines 7-23).
Claims 29 and 37 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 22, 30, and 38: The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley discloses all the limitations of claims 21, 29, and 37 discussed above.
de Ganon further discloses embedding, during the execution of the instance of the browser application, the payment token and detailed information of the purchase in the payment payload (See de Ganon, at least para. [0077], secure token may be a merchant specific token that may only be used with a single merchant).
Claims 30 and 38 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 23, 31, and 39: The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley discloses all the limitations of claims 22, 30, and 38 discussed above.
De Ganon further discloses transmitting, during the execution of the instance of the browser application, the payment payload to a merchant associated with the products to complete the purchase (See de Ganon, at least para. [0083], browser extension server provides the secure token to the browser extension application and populates the payment field with the secure token).
Claims 31 and 39 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 24 and 32: The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley discloses all the limitations of claims 22 and 30 discussed above.
Neither de Ganon nor Narasimhan expressly discloses wherein the graphical indicator comprises a graphical button.
However, Twilley discloses wherein the graphical indicator comprises a graphical button (See Twilley, at least col. 12, lines 40-55, user selects a “transact” button (i.e., a graphical indicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan the ability wherein the graphical indicator comprises a graphical button as disclosed by Twilley 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards. (See Twilley, at least col. 1, lines 7-23).
Claim 32 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Ganon in view of Narasimhan and further in view of Twilley as applied to claims 24 and 32 above, and further in view of US 2008/0184159 A1 to Selig (hereinafter “Selig”).
The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley discloses all the limitations of claims 24 and 32 discussed above.
Neither de Ganon nor Narasimhan nor Twilley expressly discloses triggering an execution of a graphical user interface (GUI) element on the browser application, in response to selecting the graphical button.
However, Selig discloses a browser extension that includes a toolbar. (See Selig, at least Abstract). Selig further discloses triggering an execution of a graphical user interface (GUI) element on the browser application, in response to selecting the graphical button (See Selig, at least para. [0047], browser extension provides toolbar; para. [0063], toolbar may be, for example, a collection of graphical user interface elements (e.g., icons, buttons, menus) with which a set of functionality is associated; para. [0065], functionality may be invoked through the toolbar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan and the mobile wallet system and method of Twilley the ability of triggering an execution of a graphical user interface (GUI) element on the browser application, in response to selecting the graphical button as disclosed by Selig 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide additional functionality for a browser. (See Selig, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 33 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 26-27 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Ganon in view of Narasimhan and further in view of Twilley and further in view of Selig as applied to claims 25 and 33 above, and further in view of US 2015/0206224 A1 to Ouimet (hereinafter “Ouimet”).
Claims 26 and 34: The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley and Selig discloses all the limitations of claims 25 and 33 discussed above.
Neither de Ganon nor Narasimhan nor Twilley nor Selig expressly discloses organizing, by the serve, and in response to the execution of the GUI element, the products based on a product category assigned to each product.
However, Ouimet discloses a commerce system in which retailers offer products for sale to consumers and in which a list including an item is provided and a set of products interchangeable with the item is determined. (See Ouimet, at least Abstract). Ouimet further discloses that an “activity within the commerce system is controlled in response to a consumer decision to purchase the selected product.” (See Ouimet, at least Abstract). Ouimet further discloses organizing, by the server and in response to the execution of the GUI element, the products based on a product category assigned to each product (See Ouimet, at least FIG. 13 and associated text; para. [0080], webpage presents categories of grocery items; a category is presented for each type of grocery item; baking product category is presented with a corresponding select button, cleaning supplies category is presented with a corresponding select button; Button 188 allows the user to sort the categories by cost, frequency of purchase, alphabetically, or other attribute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan and the mobile wallet system and method of Twilley and the browser extension toolbar of Selig the ability of organizing, by the server, and in response to the execution of the GUI element, the products based on a product category assigned to each product as disclosed by Ouimet 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “to simplify the shopping process, and save money.” (See Ouimet, at least para. [0002]).
Claim 34 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 27 and 35: The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley and Selig and Ouimet discloses all the limitations of claims 26 and 34 discussed above.
Neither de Ganon nor Narasimhan nor Twilley nor Selig expressly discloses displaying, by the server, the product categories on the browser application; receiving, by the server, a selection of one of the product categories displayed on the browser application; and triggering an execution of a second GUI element on the browser application, in response to selecting one of the product categories, wherein the second GUI element comprises a window that shows details associated with at least one of the products assigned the selected product category.
However, Ouimet discloses:
displaying, by the server, the product categories on the browser application (See Ouimet, at least FIG. 13 and associated text; para. [0080], webpage presents categories of grocery items; a category is presented for each type of grocery item; baking product category is presented with a corresponding select button, cleaning supplies category is presented with a corresponding select button);
receiving, by the server, a selection of one of the product categories displayed on the browser application (See Ouimet, at least FIGs. 13 and 20 and associated text; para. [0080], webpage presents categories of grocery items; a category is presented for each type of grocery item; baking product category is presented with a corresponding select button, cleaning supplies category is presented with a corresponding select button; paras. [0102]-[0104], consumer selects item ingredient list element 356 for the s’mores ingredients from page 340 in Figure 20); and
triggering an execution of a second GUI element on the browser application, in response to selecting one of the product categories, wherein the second GUI element comprises a window that shows details associated with at least one of the products assigned the selected product category (See Ouimet, at least FIGs. 20-21 and associated text; paras. [0102]-[0104], consumer selects item ingredient list element 356 for the s’mores ingredients from page 340 in Figure 20; ingredient list page 380 in Figure 21 is generated and displays ingredients for the recipe in Figure 20 and is analogous to the window that shows details associated with at least one of the products)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan and the mobile wallet system and method of Twilley and the browser extension toolbar of Selig the ability of displaying, by the server, the product categories on the browser application; receiving, by the server, a selection of one of the product categories displayed on the browser application; and triggering an execution of a second GUI element on the browser application, in response to selecting one of the product categories, wherein the second GUI element comprises a window that shows details associated with at least one of the products assigned the selected product category as disclosed by Ouimet 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “to simplify the shopping process, and save money.” (See Ouimet, at least para. [0002]).
Claim 35 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 28, 36, and 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Ganon in view of Narasimhan, and further in view of Twilley as applied to claims 24, 32, and 37 above, and further in view of US 2002/0077978 A1 to O’Leary et al. (hereinafter “O’Leary”).
The combination of de Ganon and Narasimhan and Twilley discloses all the limitations of claims 24, 32, and 37 discussed above.
Neither de Ganon and Narasimhan expressly discloses receiving, by the server, a selection of the graphical button.
However, Twilley discloses receiving, by the server, a selection of the graphical button (See Twilley, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; col. 12, lines 40-55, user selects a “transact” button (i.e., a graphical indicator)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan the ability of receiving, by the server, a selection of the graphical button as disclosed by Twilley 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow customers to conduct financial transactions with merchants without possessing physical payment cards. (See Twilley, at least col. 1, lines 7-23).
Neither de Ganon nor Narasimhan nor Twilley expressly discloses prompting the user to login to the virtual wallet account by a graphical user interface (GUI) element of the browser application, in response to selecting the graphical button.
However, O’Leary discloses a system and method for electronic funds transfer using a web broker software application, a payment account/digital wallet, and a virtual private lockbox. (See O’Leary, at least Abstract). O’Leary further discloses prompting the user to login to the virtual wallet account by a graphical user interface (GUI) element of the browser application, in response to selecting the graphical button (See O’Leary, at least para. [0052], consumer accesses the Wallet by selecting a wallet button on the Browser toolbar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the browser extension system and method of de Ganon and the purchase recommendation system and method of Narasimhan and the mobile wallet system and method of Twilley the ability of prompting the user to login to the virtual wallet account by a graphical user interface (GUI) element of the browser application, in response to selecting the graphical button as disclosed by O’Leary 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a safe, sound, and secure method that allows users (consumers) to shop on the Internet, pay bills, and pay anyone virtually anywhere, all without the consumer having to share account number information with the payee.” (See O’Leary, at least para. [0018]).
Claims 36 and 40 are rejected for similar reasons.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights