Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 7, 15-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted that “it is a particular implementation of securitizing information using specific technical steps, as recognized Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed Cir. 2016) . . .”. However, The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence, the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database), whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea.
Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In Bilski and in Alice, the specific features of the claimed method/system did not change the fact that the claims were drawn to an abstract idea. This interpretation of this abstract idea is based in light of the Alice decision and the updates in the MPEP. Hence the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the applicant asserted that “[these] innovations are akin to those found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com . . .”. Also, the Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant application and those of DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings an improvement in web technology was used to address the problem of retaining web customers. DDR Holdings was solving a problem introduced by technology, such that it was a technological solution to a technological problem. Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a technological solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The claims of the instant case employ user device application, user device, a processor, a memory, Quick Response (QR code), an electronic display, a server, account providers, a user, a server, a merchant, data storage unit, a computer readable non-transitory medium, a computer hardware suitably programmed to perform the claimed functions. In light of the Alice decision and the July 2015 Update of Interim Guidance Identifying Abstract Ideas the features such as “transmitting information . . .”, “scanning the QR code . . .”, “transmitting . . . the one-time user token . . .”, “receiving . . . an authentication request . . .”, “triggering the server to transmit one transaction account . . .”, “. . . complete a transaction . . .” are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. These features recited in the claim are only further refinements of the abstract idea. That does not change the fact that the claim is drawn to abstract ideas. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. As discussed earlier, the claimed steps of the method are all functions that are conventional for a computer system, which in the Applicant’s invention comprises a storage device and a processor. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only "steps, specified at a high level of generality," which is insufficient to supply an "inventive concept." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In Alice also the system was specifically programmed to perform the claimed functions.
These arguments have been considered but they are directed to commercial interactions (business relations), which belong to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In Step 2A Prong Two, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. They are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) (Step 2A Prong Two analysis). Similarly, the limitations are not indicative of inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted that “claim 1 is amended here to specify: ‘wherein the server transmits a virtual card number (VCN) to the merchant . . .’” However, per reviewing the claim amendments in light of the previously cited references, the newly cited reference, JOAO reference, discloses the claim limitations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by limiting the information to certain region, transaction amount, expiration period as taught by Joao because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JAOA helps to better manage the authorization request (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
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 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 10, 20 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, a method for transmitting information, using a desktop device having an electronic display, to a merchant, wherein the information identifies the desktop device; receiving, at the desktop device, a quick response (QR) code from the merchant, wherein the QR code: is generated based on the information; is encrypted; and includes a one-time use token, and a timestamp for setting an expiration period for a session with the merchant; scanning, by user device application comprising instructions for execution on a user device comprising a processor and a memory, the QR code from an electronic display; receiving, by the user device application, an authentication request from the server; transmitting, by the user device application, an authentication credential to the server; transmitting, by user device application, the one-time use token to a server; receiving, by the user device application from the server, a list of one or more transaction accounts associated with one or more account providers associated with the user; and transmitting, by the user device application to the server, a selection of one transaction account, wherein the selection triggers the server to transmit one transaction account information to a merchant, and wherein the transaction account information is sufficient to complete a transaction within the expiration period for the session set by the timestamp; and wherein the server transmits a virtual card number (VCN) to the merchant; wherein the VCN: has an expiration period, is limited for use only at the merchant, is limited to a geographical region, and is associated with a maximum transaction amount. These limitations are directed to concept of facilitating payment between user device and merchant’s device – sales activities. Hence, it is directed to commercial interactions which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as user device application, user device, a processor, a memory, Quick Response (QR code), an electronic display, a server, account providers, a user, a server, a merchant, data storage unit, a computer readable non-transitory medium, a computer hardware recited at a high-level of generality (scanning, receiving, and transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. They are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 10 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic processing devices that facilitate payment between two parties is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 2 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites authentication credentials.in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (a biometric, a personal identification number, or password) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites a QR code in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a unique identifier, a user, an email, and a timestamp) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 4 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites storing user’s selection in a storage unit in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a user, a data storage unit) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 5 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites displaying user accounts in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a user device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 6 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites an abstract idea of transmitting payment token in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a payment token, a merchant, a server) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 8 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites transaction account information in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as an account number, expiration date, cardholder’s name) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 9 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites a display in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a desktop computer, an electronic display) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 11 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites launching an application in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a universal resource locator, a user device application, a QR code) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 12 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites performing a risk analysis on transaction history in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a server, user) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 13 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites performing a risk analysis on transaction history to determine fraudulent transaction in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a server) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 14 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites transmitting a second authentication request in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a server, a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 18 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites opening a website in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a website, a server) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 19 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recites transmitting account provisioning information in which the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (such as a merchant, a server, a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-6, 8-14, 18-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0027076 A1) in view of Pitz et al. (US 10,565,589) in further view of VAN OS et al. (US 20180336543 A1) in further view of JOAO (US 2016/0086187 A1).
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, is disclosed: Sharma teaches: A method for user authentication and card provisioning, comprising:
transmitting information, using a desktop device having an electronic display, to a merchant, wherein the information identifies the desktop device (Sharma, see at least par. [0044] “. . . the POS terminal 104 is configured to accommodate display of a machine-readable code as seen in FIG. 1. The machine-readable code, as an example, is a quick response (QR) code scannable by external devices (such as the customer device 106) including scanner and/or camera. Upon his turn, the customer 102 walks up to the POS terminal 104 and accesses an application on his customer device 106. The application is managed by a server system associated with a payment network 120 . . .”) The user device, or desktop device, and the POS terminal are part of the payment system. And thus, the information from the user device is transmitted via the payment application;
receiving, at the desktop device, a quick response (QR) code from the merchant (par. [0044] “. . . The machine-readable code may be scanned using the customer device 106 through the application . . .”), wherein the OR code: is generated based on the information (see at least par. [0057] “. . . The machine-readable code 308, is depicted as a QR code 308. As described earlier, the QR code 308 includes information corresponding to a merchant (such as a merchant ID and merchant details, etc.) and a dynamic token . . .”) ;
is encrypted (see at least par. [0058] “. . . The POS terminal 104 is configured with instructions such that the information encrypted within the QR code 308 are altered at pre-defined intervals (say every 5 minutes) . . .”);
and includes a one-time use token (see at least par. [0137] “. . . The processor 1115 is further configured to facilitate the authentication of a customer by verifying a contact number associated with the device 106, PIN/OTP, etc. . . .”) OTP is the one time passcode, and a timestamp for setting an expiration period for a session with the merchant (see at least par. [0096] “. . . However, if the pre-defined interval since the last machine-readable code was displayed at operations 602 or 502 has not lapsed, the machine-readable code displayed at operations 602, 502 and the machine-readable code displayed at operation 702 may be the same.”) The “pre-defined interval” corresponds to a timestamp for an expiration period at the POS when displaying the QR code;
scanning, by user device application comprising instructions for execution on a user device comprising a processor and a memory, the QR code from the electronic display (Sharma, par. [0044]) the user device scans the QR code presented on the merchant or POS in which the QR code contains the merchant ID and payment information;
transmitting, by user device application, the one-time use token to a server (Sharma, see at least par. [0046] “The content of the machine-readable code, and more particularly, the dynamic token, changes at pre-defined intervals based on settings defined at the POS terminal.”) The dynamic token changes after a pre-defined interval corresponds to one time use;
receiving, by the user device application, an authentication request from a server (Sharma, Fig. 5 & par. [0068] & Par. [0069]) The authentication request is sent from the merchant to the payment server, and then from the payment server to the mobile application;
Sharma does not disclose the following; however Pitz teaches:
transmitting, by the user device application, an authentication credential to the server (Pitz et al. (US 10,565,589), Col. 20 ln 30-55, In step 324, the user mobile device or user mobile application may receive the authentication request message . . . The authentication request message may be pushed to the user mobile device from the processing server or another server in communication with the processing server (e.g., an application management server). . . . In embodiments, user mobile application may be, e.g., a credit card management application, a banking application, etc. In embodiments, the authentication request message may cause a notification to be displayed on user mobile device even in instances where user mobile application is not presently running on user mobile device. The authentication request message may cause a display of the user mobile device and/or a screen of the merchant point of sale device or a device in communication with the merchant point of sale device to display a user interface requesting user input (e.g., a PIN, the last four digits of a social security number, a signature, a password, a drawing, a pattern, etc.) Interpretation: the authentication is pushed from the server to the mobile application (or received by the user device) for authentication purpose;
wherein the server transmits a virtual card number (VCN) to the merchant (Col. 7 ln 31-39 “ In some embodiments, the issuer may issue payment account data or data associated with the payment account (e.g., virtual payment numbers, limited use numbers, etc.) to the consumer which may be used similarly to consumer payment card device 102 to conduct payment transactions at a merchant point of sale device 104. The payment card device 102 (or payment account data/associated data) may be presented to a merchant point of sale device 104 for payment in a proposed payment transaction.”) The virtual card number is transmitted to the merchant at the POS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma by transmitting an authentication credential to server as taught by Pitz because modifying Sharma using elements taught by Pitz helps to improve fraud decisioning in transaction processing system (Col. 2 ln 35-40). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Sharma in view of Pitz does not disclose the following; however, VAN OS teaches:
receiving, by the user device application from the server, a list of one or more transaction accounts associated with one or more account providers associated with the user (VAN OS, see par. [0959] “. . .In some examples, the authorization user interface (e.g., 2948) includes a request for authentication information (e.g., 2830, 2950, biometric authentication information) from the user of the device to authorize the operation. In some examples, the authorization user interface (e.g., 2822, 2948 includes an indication of a payment method to be used, along with an option to change the payment method (e.g., to select from among a plurality of payment methods, such as credit card accounts, debit card accounts, payment accounts, provisioned onto the electronic device) . . .”) Upon verification, the user can select from a list of transaction accounts;
and transmitting, by the user device application to the server, a selection of one transaction account (see par. [0959] “. . .In some examples, the authorization user interface (e.g., 2948) includes a request for authentication information (e.g., 2830, 2950, biometric authentication information) from the user of the device to authorize the operation. In some examples, the authorization user interface (e.g., 2822, 2948 includes an indication of a payment method to be used, along with an option to change the payment method (e.g., to select from among a plurality of payment methods, such as credit card accounts, debit card accounts, payment accounts, provisioned onto the electronic device) . . .”) Upon verification, the user device allows user to select one of the payment methods from the list of accounts, wherein the selection triggers the server to transmit one transaction account information to a merchant (see at least par. [0711] “. . . In some embodiments, authentication (e.g., fingerprint authentication) is successful if the received authentication information (e.g., fingerprint scan input 2003) is consistent with enrolled authentication information (e.g., enrolled fingerprint authentication information) stored on the device (or accessible, via an external server, by the device) . . .” see at least par. [0908] “ In some examples, transactions between participants may be commercial transactions between the user of the electronic device and a merchant . . .” & see at least par. [0963] “. . . In accordance with (3032) a determination that the operation requires authorization and the operation has been authorized, the electronic device performs (3034) the operation in response to the confirmation input (e.g., sending the message with the secure attachment, or sending the payment) . . .”) Interpretation: upon the selection of the account, the server could perform a transaction, or payment, to the merchant, and wherein the transaction account information is sufficient to complete a transaction within the expiration period for the session set by the timestamp (see at least par. [01284] “ In some examples, the invitation message object includes an expiration date of the group account. In some examples, the invitation message object includes a valid time period of the group account.” & par. [1434]) Interpretation: the system detects whether the balance of the account is sufficient to cover the requested transfer amount within a time period (time stamp with expiration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz by transmitting a selection of a transaction account from a plurality of accounts as taught by VAN OS because modifying Sharma view of Pitz using elements taught by VAN OS helps to improve user interfaces for managing transfers between parties (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS does not disclose the following; however, JOAO teaches:
wherein the VCN: has an expiration period, is limited for use only at the merchant, is limited to a geographical region, and is associated with a maximum transaction amount (JOAO, see at least par. [0187] “. . . The limitations and/or restrictions may include the types of transactions which are allowed and/or authorized, the goods and/or services which may be purchased with the account, the vendors, stores and/or service providers, which may be authorized to accept the payment via the account, limits on the dollar or other monetary amounts of transactions pertaining to each authorized vendor, seller, and/or service provider, daily spending limits, and/or the geographical area or location wherein authorized account use may be limited, and/or authorized times for account usage, such as, but not limited to, specific days, dates, time of day, time of month, year, and/or any other time of use, and/or any other limitation and/or restriction regarding amount of transaction, parties involved, geographical area, and/or times of allowed usage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by limiting the information to certain region, transaction amount, expiration period as taught by Joao because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JAOA helps to better manage the authorization request (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 2. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Pitz teaches: wherein the authentication credential comprises at least one selected from the group of a biometric, personal identification number (PIN), and one time password (OTP) (Pitz, see at least par. [0711] “. . . In some embodiments, authentication (e.g., fingerprint authentication) is successful if the received authentication information (e.g., fingerprint scan input 2003) is consistent with enrolled authentication information (e.g., enrolled fingerprint authentication information) stored on the device (or accessible, via an external server, by the device) . . .” see at least par. [0908] “ In some examples, transactions between participants may be commercial transactions between the user of the electronic device and a merchant . . .” & see at least par. [0963] “. . . In accordance with (3032) a determination that the operation requires authorization and the operation has been authorized, the electronic device performs (3034) the operation in response to the confirmation input (e.g., sending the message with the secure attachment, or sending the payment) . . .”) Interpretation: upon the selection of the account, the server could perform a transaction, or payment, to the merchant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by transmitting an authentication credential to server as taught by Pitz because modifying Sharma in view of Pitz in further of VAN OS using elements taught by Pitz helps to improve fraud decisioning in transaction processing system (Col. 2 ln 35-40). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 4. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, VAN OS further teaches: wherein the method further comprises storing the user’s selection of the one transaction account in a data storage unit (VANS, par. [0279] & see par. [651] “. . . in response to detecting tap gesture 1703, in accordance with a determination (e.g., made by electronic device 1700 based on accounts stored or logged into the device or made by an external device, such as a server, storing information about accounts associated with the user of the device) that a payment account associated with the user, which is required to receive and send payments (e.g., via an operating-system controlled transfer application) . . .”) interpretation: the cited portion discloses storing user’s selection into one of the memory, or storage unit, of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by storing user’s selection of account in the data storage as taught by VAN OS because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JOAO helps to improve user interfaces for managing transfers between parties. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 5. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO discloses: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, VAN OS teaches: wherein the list of one or more transaction accounts is displayed on the user device (VANS, see par. [0959] “. . .In some examples, the authorization user interface (e.g., 2948) includes a request for authentication information (e.g., 2830, 2950, biometric authentication information) from the user of the device to authorize the operation. In some examples, the authorization user interface (e.g., 2822, 2948 includes an indication of a payment method to be used, along with an option to change the payment method (e.g., to select from among a plurality of payment methods, such as credit card accounts, debit card accounts, payment accounts, provisioned onto the electronic device) . . .”) Upon verification, the user device allows user to select one of the payment methods from the list of accounts) The list of accounts is displayed on a user device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by displaying one or more transaction accounts as taught by VAN OS because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JOAO helps to improve user interfaces for managing transfers between parties. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 6. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, VAN OS teaches wherein the server, upon receiving the selection, transmits a payment token to the merchant to complete the transaction (VAN OS, par. [0966]) The server transmits a payment object, or payment token, to complete the transaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by transferring payment token as taught by JOAO because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JOAO helps to improve user interfaces for managing transfers between parties. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 8. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, VAN OS teaches: wherein the transaction account information comprises at least an account number, expiration date, and cardholder name associated with the selected transaction account (VAN OS, see at least par. [0327] “The electronic devices (e.g., devices 100, 300, and 500) are optionally configured to store payment account information associated with each of one or more payment accounts. Payment account information includes, for example, one or more of: a person's or company's name, a billing address, a login, a password, an account number, an expiration date, a security code, a telephone number, a bank associated with the payment account (e.g., an issuing bank), and a card network identifier . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by comprising all the attributes as taught by VAN OS because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JOAO helps to improve managing transfers between parties. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 9. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The method of claim 1. Furthermore, Sharma teaches: wherein the electronic display is associated with a desktop computer (Sharma, par. [0170]) Interpretation: the cited portion discloses a desktop computer.
Claim 18. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The system of claim 10. Furthermore, Sharma teaches: wherein the processor opens a website associated with the server (Sharma, see at least par. [0151] “. . . The merchant device 1300 as explained herein is only one example of the merchant device 112. In various embodiments, the merchant device 112 can be a merchant mobile phone, a kiosk, a PDA, a merchant facilitated e-commerce website interface running on a computing device and the like . . .”) The website opened by a processor corresponds to a merchant facilitated e-commerce.
Claim 19. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The system of claim 10. Furthermore, VAN OS teaches: wherein the server, upon receiving the selection, is further triggered to transmit account provisioning information to the merchant (VAN OS, par. [0841] “. . . or another example, transaction detail user interface 2648 includes in indication 2648C of the account details (e.g., account number) of the used account (e.g., Kate's payment account . . .”) Interpretation: Account number corresponds to account provisioning information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS by transmitting account provisioning information as taught by VAN OS because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS using elements taught by JOAO helps to improve managing transfers between parties. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0027076 A1) in view of Pitz et al. (US 10,565,589) in further view of VAN OS et al. (US 20180336543 A1) in further view of JOAO (US 2016/0086187 A1) in further view of Jacobs et al. (US 2017/037554 A1).
Claim 3. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Jacobs teaches: wherein the QR code comprises a merchant name, a unique identifier (ID) associated with the user, an email associated with the user (Jacobs, par. [0132] “. . . For example, a resource provider account may be associated with a merchant name . . .” & par. [0159]) Interpretation: the resource provider corresponds to a merchant and the cited portion discloses user ID, merchant name, email address and timestamp contained in the QR code.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO by including QR code attributes as taught by Jacobs because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO using elements taught by Jacobs helps to improve facilitating transfers between user and merchant. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0027076 A1) in view of Pitz et al. (US 10,565,589) in further view of VAN OS et al. (US 20180336543 A1) in further view of JOAO (US 2016/0086187 A1) in further view of Rathbun (US 2014/0033273 A1).
Claim 11. Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO discloses: the system of claim 10. However, Rathbun teaches: the QR code comprises a universal resource locator (URL) configured to launch the user device application (Rathbun, see at least par. [0017] “The computer system can present a custom, mobile-device scheme URL as a Quick Response Code (QR code) that can be scanned/decoded by a QR code scanner on a mobile device. The mobile device operating system (OS) can infer from the custom scheme URL that the URL is to be consumed by a mobile application resident on the mobile device. The mobile device OS can invoke the mobile application. . . .”) The QR code embeds a URL and the OS can trigger the URL to open a mobile application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma in view of Pitz in further view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO by including URL within a QR code as taught by Rathbun because modifying Sharma view of Pitz in view of VAN OS in further view of JOAO using elements taught by Jacobs helps to improve facilitating transfers between user and merchant. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 do not have art applied to the currently. However, other rejections are still outstanding such as the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101; 35 U.S.C. 103, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of withdrawing art: The claims recite performing a risk analysis and determining whether the transaction is likely to be fraudulent, and if fraudulent transmitting a second authentication request. However, the claims still do not overcome 101, 103 rejection(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693