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 the Application
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14, 16-23 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 26-December-2023. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for Continuation of PCT/CN2022/125805 and Foreign priority has been claimed for Application CN-202111266627.8 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 18-October-2022 and 28-October-2021, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10-June-2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 4, 7-9, 12-13, 16, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jajara et al. (US 20160110718 A1) in view of Kuttipalakkal (US 20170180360 A1).
As per Claims 1, 9, and 13, Jajara discloses a computer-implemented method for offline transaction processing, applied to a first terminal of a transaction initiator (See Figure 1 disclosing the system for implementing offline transactions), wherein the computer-implemented method comprises:
obtaining information about a current network connection status of the first terminal for a target transaction between the first terminal and a second terminal of a transaction target party (See Figure 4 – step 402, as disclosed [0048] “At step 402, the user device may determine that no network connection is available. For example, responsive to the payment request, connection monitoring engine 200 of FIG. 2 may check for a network connection and determine that the user device is not connected to a network”);
in response to determining that the current network connection status of the first terminal is connected and that a network connection status of the second terminal of the transaction target party of the target transaction is unconnected, or the current network connection status of the first terminal is unconnected ([0048] “At step 402, the user device may determine that no network connection is available. For example, responsive to the payment request, connection monitoring engine 200 of FIG. 2 may check for a network connection and determine that the user device is not connected to a network”), determining whether the first terminal is able to output a transaction identification code used to trigger offline transaction processing on the target transaction (See Figure 4 – step 404, as disclosed [0049] “At step 404, the user device may perform offline payment verification operations. Offline payment verification operations may include various comparisons of transaction information associated with the requested transaction with stored, encrypted verification data stored on the user device” or see also Figure 5 – step 512);
selecting, from a plurality of candidate offline transaction policies, an offline transaction policy for the target transaction between the first terminal and the second terminal (See Figure 4 – step 406, as disclosed [0052] “At step 406, the user device may generate payment information such as a scannable code (e.g., a barcode or QR code), a series of characters (e.g., numbers, letters, and/or symbols), a funding instrument number, an account number, or other payment authorization information to be provided to the merchant or other recipient of funds via the offline transaction”),
wherein the plurality of candidate offline transaction policies comprises at least: a near field communication (NFC)-based offline transaction policy, a Bluetooth-based offline transaction policy, or a local area network-based offline transaction policy ([0067] “If it is determined that the user device is still offline, the offline payment may be stored in an offline payment pool such as asynchronous transaction pool 212 and offline payment authorization for the offline payment may be provided to the merchant (e.g., by generating a scannable code on the user device display or by communicating with a merchant device using short range communications such as NFC communications or Bluetooth communications)”), and
…
performing the offline transaction processing on the target transaction between the first terminal and the second terminal based on the offline transaction policy (See Figure 4 – step 412, as disclosed [0055] “At step 412, the user device may provide the pooled transaction information and a request to process and/or complete (e.g., fund) the payment to a payment provider server. In this way, a user device may be provided that can seamlessly be used to perform transactions for the user without any disruptions due to network service availability”).
Jajara may not explicitly disclose, but Kuttipalakkal discloses:
selecting, from a plurality of candidate offline transaction policies, an offline transaction policy for the target transaction between the first terminal and the second terminal ([0043] “At step 409, after receiving the request and/or response from the computing device 103, the authentication device 102 checks whether the IR NFC is selected as a communication interface for performing the transaction. If the IR NFC is selected, the authentication device 102 pairs with the respective computing device 103 using the IR NFC, as shown in step 411. Alternatively, if the IR NFC is not selected for performing the transaction, the Bluetooth interface 119 and/or the USB interface 117 are used for transferring the one or more secure identity information from the computing device 103 as shown in step 413”),
wherein the plurality of candidate offline transaction policies comprises at least: a near field communication (NFC)-based offline transaction policy, a Bluetooth-based offline transaction policy, or a local area network-based offline transaction policy ([0039] “Alternatively, during offline transaction, as shown in step 307, the authentication device 102 selects one of the NFC methods, such as the IR NFC and the Wi-Fi NFC to connect to a corresponding computing device 103 (for Wi-Fi NFC) and/or the second authentication device 202 (for IR NFC) for performing one or more transactions as shown in step 313 to 315.”), and
wherein the selecting of the offline transaction policy is based on one or more conditions comprising: (i) a determination result indicating whether the first terminal is able to output the transaction identification code, (ii) a determination result indicating whether the second terminal is in the same local area network as the first terminal ([0039] “In an embodiment, the IR NFC may be comparatively faster than the Wi-Fi NFC since the authentication device 102 automatically pairs with the nearest line of sight device 202, thus avoiding the need for searching the device”), or (iii) whether the first terminal is in a powered-off state; and
performing the offline transaction processing on the target transaction between the first terminal and the second terminal based on the offline transaction policy ([0043] “Further, at step 415, the authentication device 102 receives the one or more secure identity information from the computing device 103 and performs the one or more transactions upon authenticating the computing device 103 using the received one or more secure identity information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize selection of a method for the offline transaction and performing the transaction as in Kuttipalakkal in the system executing the method of Jajara with the motivation of offering to reduce fraud, theft and/or security breaches for offline transactions as taught by Kuttipalakkal over that of Jajara.
As per claims 4, 12, and 16, Jajara teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, the non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to claim 9, and the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the selecting the offline transaction policy for the target transaction comprises:
selecting the NFC-based offline transaction policy as the offline transaction policy for the target transaction in response to determining that the first terminal is not able to output the transaction identification code ([0067] “If it is determined that the user device is still offline, the offline payment may be stored in an offline payment pool such as asynchronous transaction pool 212 and offline payment authorization for the offline payment may be provided to the merchant (e.g., by generating a scannable code on the user device display or by communicating with a merchant device using short range communications such as NFC communications or Bluetooth communications)”).
As per claims 7, 19, and 23, Jajara may not explicitly disclose, but Kuttipalakkal teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, the apparatus according to claim 13, and the non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to claim 9, wherein the selecting the offline transaction policy for the target transaction comprises:
in response to determining that the first terminal is able to output the transaction identification code, determining whether the second terminal is in the same local area network as the first terminal ([0043] “Further, at step 405, the authentication device 102 configures the one or more Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transceivers (UARTs), such as, the biometric scanner, Bluetooth, IR NFC and Wi-Fi NFC. As shown in step 407, the authentication device 102 waits for a request and/or response message from the computing device 103 to initiate a transaction with the computing device 103. At step 409, after receiving the request and/or response from the computing device 103, the authentication device 102 checks whether the IR NFC is selected as a communication interface for performing the transaction”); and
in response to determining that the second terminal and the first terminal are in different local area networks, selecting the Bluetooth-based offline transaction policy as the offline transaction policy for the target transaction ([0043] “Alternatively, if the IR NFC is not selected for performing the transaction, the Bluetooth interface 119 and/or the USB interface 117 are used for transferring the one or more secure identity information from the computing device 103 as shown in step 413”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Bluetooth communications for the offline transaction as in Kuttipalakkal in the system executing the method of Jajara with the motivation of offering to reduce fraud, theft and/or security breaches for offline transactions as taught by Kuttipalakkal over that of Jajara.
As per claims 8 and 20, Jajara may not explicitly disclose, but Kuttipalakkal teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, and the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises:
obtaining second information about a second current network connection status of the first terminal for a second target transaction between the first terminal and a third terminal of a second transaction target party ([0038] “In an embodiment, the transaction 305 between the authentication device 102 and the computing device 103 and/or the second authentication device 202 and the second computing device 203 may be one of offline transaction and online transaction”); and
in response to determining that the second current network connection status of the first terminal is connected and a second network connection status of the third terminal of the second transaction target party of the second target transaction is connected, performing online transaction processing on the second target transaction between the first terminal and the third terminal by using a connected network ([0038] “During online transaction, at step 309, the authentication device 102 uses the communication network 105 to connect to the authentication server 107 as shown in step 319. As shown in step 321, upon connecting to the authentication server 107, the user may perform one or more required transactions and store the transaction data 129 back on the memory of the authentication server 107”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize performing online transactions if connection is available as in Kuttipalakkal in the system executing the method of Jajara with the motivation of offering to [0045] improve user experience by avoiding dependency on internet connectivity as taught by Kuttipalakkal over that of Jajara.
Claims 2, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jajara, in view of Kuttipalakkal, and in view of CHEN (CN 111062724 A).
As per claims 2, 10, and 14, Jajara teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, the non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to claim 9, and the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the transaction identification code comprises a graphic code … ([0052] “At step 406, the user device may generate payment information such as a scannable code (e.g., a barcode or QR code), a series of characters (e.g., numbers, letters, and/or symbols), a funding instrument number, an account number, or other payment authorization information to be provided to the merchant or other recipient of funds via the offline transaction”).
Jajara may not explicitly disclose, but Chen teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, the non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to claim 9, and the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the transaction identification code comprises … a code of a biometric feature of a user of the first terminal ([Page 5 Lines 24-28] “1 payment terminal, which is mainly responsible for the offline transaction information through the established short distance data transmission channel is transmitted to the recipient terminal, the offline transaction information at least comprises the transfer amount, payment side account, payment time and paying party biometric identification information, the paying party biometric identification information is face image information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize biometric information included in the offline transaction transmission as in Chen in the system executing the method of Jajara with the motivation of offering to improve security and efficiency in off-line transactions as taught by Chen over that of Jajara.
Claims 5, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jajara, in view of Kuttipalakkal, and in view of CHEN et al. (US 20180330360 A1), hereinafter Chen-2.
As per claims 5, 17, and 21, Jajara may not explicitly disclose, but Chen-2 teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 4, the apparatus according to claim 16, and the non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to claim 12, wherein the selecting the NFC-based offline transaction policy as the offline transaction policy in response to determining that the first terminal is not able to output the transaction identification code comprises:
selecting the NFC-based offline transaction policy as the offline transaction policy in response to determining that the first terminal is in the powered-off state ([0026] “The credit payment method and device based on card emulation of a mobile terminal provided in the present disclosure can be applied to a mobile terminal and a transaction terminal. After enabling a payment application, a user can complete offline credit payment on the transaction terminal by using the mobile terminal, to quickly and securely complete a payment transaction” wherein the card emulation is one of the NFC modes that work even if the phone is powered off, as disclosed [0057] “Card emulation is one of three working modes of the NFC technology. The card emulation is an integrated circuit (IC) card using a radio frequency identification (RFID) technology … A great advantage of the present method is that the card is powered by an RF domain of a non-contact card reader, and therefore the card can work even if a host device (such as a mobile phone) is powered off”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize card emulation using NFC technology when the device is powered off as in Chen in the system executing the method of Jajara with the motivation of offering to [0266] “ensure the efficient usage of computer resources (for example, processing cycles, network bandwidth, and memory usage), through the efficient offline payment processing” as taught by Chen over that of Jajara.
Claims 6, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jajara in view of Kuttipalakkal, and in view of Rodrigues et al. (US 20180232732 A1).
As per claims 6, 18, and 22, Jajara may not explicitly disclose, but Rodrigues teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, the apparatus according to claim 13, and the non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to claim 9, wherein the selecting the offline transaction policy for the target transaction comprises:
in response to determining that the first terminal is able to output the transaction identification code, determining whether the second terminal is in the same local area network as the first terminal (See Figure 6A – step 600, as disclosed [0243] “In this example, at step 600, a communication channel is established between the payee and payer client devices 330. In particular, the communications channel is typically a Bluetooth® or NFC communications channel which can be established by having each user execute the payment application and selecting an offline payment option”); and
in response to determining that the second terminal is in the same local area network as the first terminal, selecting the local area network-based offline transaction policy as the offline transaction policy for the target transaction ([0243] “Selecting this option can place the client device in a “pairing” mode allowing this to communicate with the other client device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize determining the local communication channel to pair and conduct the offline transaction as in Rodrigues in the system executing the method of Jajara with the motivation of offering to improve security by reducing fraudulent transactions and efficiency in off-line transactions as taught by Rodrigues over that of Jajara.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 to 13, filed 27-February-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DONAHUE et al. (US 20100281118 A1) discloses [0036] “One skilled in the relevant arts will appreciate that wireless service providers often configure network access servers 112a-b to control connections to network 172. Wireless service providers employ techniques to manage bandwidth consumption for their wireless networks. One of these techniques is the termination of wireless data connections that remain inactive for predetermined time periods. For example, a wireless service provider may terminate or drop a connection between mobile device 160a and web server 122 via network 172 if the connection is inactive for five minutes or some other time threshold”;
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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695 /CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights