Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/508,760

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATING LOCATION OF A MOBILE DEVICE FOR HANDS-FREE PAYMENT

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Examiner
ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
Art Unit
3622
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Stripe, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 5m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
300 granted / 605 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
639
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 605 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This office action is in response to communication filed on 2/5/2026. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are presented for examination. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,655. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,833. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 1,0467,617. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 1,026,073. Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,838,477. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-18 and 21-32 are allowable over prior art of record. The closest prior art of record Phillips (2020/0112821) teaches providing location based notifications on mobile devices, a P2P network as one in which portable electronic facilities may exchange location or demographic information directly and a geofence 900 may be entered on the portable electronic facility. Hammand (2009/0187492) discloses using GPS location to validate transactions. Gillenson (8,775,243) teaches matching offers based on transaction history and proximity, Labrou (2007/0022058) teaches methods and apparatuses and variations improve on the speed of a payment at a physical POS, the cost of the transactions since they do not always require that the mobile phone connect to the wireless Internet or cellular telephone network for the transaction to be authenticated and approved. In addition, the size of the messages is reduced for short-range communication methods. Nevertheless, the combination of Philips, Hammand, Phillip and Labrou do not disclose receiving, by the POS device via a peer-peer ad-hoc network formed by a plurality of mobile devices registered with the POS device, a plurality of locations of the plurality of mobile devices. Other References of record: Article titled, "ConnecTerra Product Family" teaches a strong edge processing paradigm designed to reduce network loads and enterprise system by providing cost-effective, easy to deploy solution to meet immediate RFID needs. WO 94/12892 teaches receiving stations such as multi-purpose mobile communications devices can thereby calculate their position. The system allows the receiving stations to receive a correction signal from a correction over the communications path on a special signaling layer whereby the receiving stations can calculate a corrected position. Response to Arguments The 101 rejections have been withdrawn. The amended claims recite a specific solution to a technical problem in wireless transaction systems. As described in the specification as filed on paragraph 0049 “ In instances where the mobile device 208 is not within a range of communication of the selected POS device 202, the mobile device 208 may receive an authorization response for the executed payment transaction from the POS device 202 via one or more intermediate mobile devices 204 and 206 and/or access points 218 with a range 218R of communication in the peer-to-peer ad-hoc network 200”. Claims 11, 21 and 26 as amended recite determining “whether the mobile device is located within a wireless communication range of the POS device” and then transmitting “either directly, if the mobile device is located within the wireless communication range of the POS device, or via the peer-to-peer ad hoc-network, if the mobile device is located within the geofence outside the wireless communication range of the POS device.” This represents a specific technical improvement to how transaction communications are routed based on the relative positions of devices in a network and do not fall within abstract ideas grouping, under 2A, prong one. The Double Patenting Rejections will be maintained until Terminal Disclaimers are filed. The claims amendments overcame the 103 rejections. Point of contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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. /RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 08, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 26, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12554788
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING MEDIA CONTENT OVER AN ELECTRONIC NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12475455
GAMING SYSTEM WITH SECURE ELECTRONIC PAYMENT COUPON REDEMPTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12443978
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHARING REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH DIGITAL ASSETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12354178
IDENTITY VERIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GATHERING IDENTIFYING AUTHENTICATING REGISTERING MONITORING TRACKING ANALYZING STORING AND COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTING DYNAMIC BIOMETRIC MARKERS AND PERSONAL DATA VIA ELECTRONIC MEANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12354127
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERFACING WITH A WEBSITE TO MODIFY CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+6.1%)
4y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 605 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month