DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgements
The current application claims priority up to provisional application 61/559,118, filed 11/13/2011. After a review of the disclosures in the patent family, it has been determined the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the current application is 06/13/2013.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-17 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the received TID from the first telecommunications device not matching the generated TID…” Claim 16 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving the TID from the first telecommunications device, the second telecommunications device transmitting the received TID…to the payment server” and “in response to receiving the TID…from the second telecommunications device, the payment server comparing the received TID…to the generated TID…” It is unclear to which “received TID” in claim 1 the “received TID” in claim 16 is referring. The language of “matching” in claim 16 suggests that it should be the received TID from the second telecommunications device because that is the TID that is being matched to the generated TID in claim 1, however, the language of “from the first telecommunications device…” suggests otherwise. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, the received TID being matched shall be interpreted to be the received TID from the second telecommunications device, or payer, to remain consistent with claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the TID is a transient TID that is active for a predetermined period of time.” Claim 17 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the “generated TID” in line 17 and the “received TID” in line 16. It is unclear to which “TID” the “the TID” in claim 17 is referring. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, any TID will be interpreted to be a transient TID.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-17 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A method for making payments, comprising:
transmitting with a first telecommunications device a request for a transaction identification (TID), a payment amount for a financial transaction, and first geographical location data to a payment server communicatively coupled to the first telecommunications device via a network;
in response to receiving the request from the first telecommunications device, the payment server confirming the first geographical location data, generating the TID, and transmitting, over the network, the TID to the first telecommunications device;
in response to receiving the TID from the payment server, the first telecommunications device communicating the received TID to a second telecommunications device communicatively coupled to the payment server via the network;
in response to receiving the TID from the first telecommunications device, the second telecommunications device transmitting the received TID and second geographical location data to the payment server over the network;
in response to receiving the TID and the second geographical location data from the second telecommunications device, the payment server comparing the received TID from the second telecommunications device to the generated TID and the second geographical location data to the first geographical location data, and in response to the received TID matching the generated TID and the second geographical location data matching the first geographical location data, the payment server transmitting to the second telecommunications device, over the network, invoice information related to the payment amount and a payment confirmation request; and
in response to receiving the invoice information and the payment confirmation request from the payment server, the second telecommunications device transmitting an authorization order to the payment server to release the payment amount to the first telecommunications device.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-G recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claimed limitations can be grouped as commercial or legal interactions in the form of sales activities or behaviors. A method for making a payment by comparing and matching transaction identifiers and geographic locations is analogous to a sales activity/behavior. Furthermore, comparing and matching transaction identifiers and geographical location data in limitation F can also be categorized under mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
A “first communications device,” “payment server,” “second communications device,” and “network” have all been recited at a high-level of generality. The abstract idea(s) in limitations A-G are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea(s). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea(s), claim 1 amounts to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea(s) on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea(s). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-3, 15, and 17 provide further context for the geographical location data(s), the device(s), and the TID. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, they merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) identified above. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4 and 6 are related to registering and validating the second telecommunications device. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, they merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) identified above. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 is related to the registration process for the second telecommunications device, and only recites “storing the device ID, the phone number, and the payment method to a database” as an additional element. Such limitation is considered insignificant extra solution activity because it does not meaningfully limit the method for making payments. Furthermore, the courts have determined that electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and “storing” has been claimed in a generic manner. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7-9 are related to storing details related to the payment/transaction (“storing the TID, the payment amount, and a merchant ID…,” “storing transaction information related to the merchant ID and the payment method…,” and “storing the timestamp to the database”). Other limitations in claims 7-9 are not considered additional elements unless otherwise noted here. Limitations in claims 7-9 that recite “storing…” are identified as additional elements, but are considered insignificant extra solution activity because they do not meaningfully limit the method for making payments. Furthermore, the courts have determined that electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and all of the “storing” limitations in claims 7-9 have been claimed in a generic manner. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 10-11 are related to defining a duration/expiration time for the TID. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, they merely elaborate on the abstract idea(s) identified above. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the claim(s) from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 12-14 are related to transmission methods for the TID. Claims 12-13 do not recite any new additional elements. Claim 14 recites “a Bluetooth connection, a Wi-Fi connection, and a Near Field Communication (NFC)” as additional elements. However, these additional elements have been recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because transmitting via the listed options do not meaningfully limit the method for making payments. Furthermore, the courts have determined that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 16 is related to transmitting an error message indicating a payment error. It does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, it merely elaborates on the abstract idea(s) identified above. When the limitation is considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which it depends, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laracey U.S. 2011/0251892 in view of Ellis et al. U.S. Patent 8,639,621 (herein as “Ellis”).
Re Claim 1, Laracey discloses a method for making payments, comprising:
transmitting with a first telecommunications device a request for a transaction identification (TID) [0105] – “The merchant payment authorization request may also include…information used to assign a checkout token to the transaction,” a payment amount for a financial transaction [0105] – “transaction management system 230 receives a merchant payment authorization request, including…amount due (the “transaction amount”),” and first geographical location data [0154] – “point of sale location specified in the information received in or derived form a merchant payment authorization request” to a payment server Fig. 2 230 communicatively coupled to the first telecommunications device Fig. 2 208 via a network Fig. 2 220;
in response to receiving the request from the first telecommunications device, the payment server […] generating the TID, and transmitting, over the network, the TID to the first telecommunications device [0138] – “the transaction management system 630 transmits a checkout token to the shopping cart 640 or the POS 609. The checkout token may be either generated for the transaction”;
in response to receiving the TID from the payment server, the first telecommunications device communicating the received TID [0053] – “a checkout token 210 is displayed on or near the point of sale,” [0054] – “allow the checkout token 210 to be captured as an image…with the mobile device 202” to a second telecommunications device Fig. 2 202 communicatively coupled to the payment server via the network Fig. 2 214;
in response to receiving the TID from the first telecommunications device, the second telecommunications device transmitting the received TID and second geographical location data to the payment server over the network [0139] – “mobile device 602 is operated to transmit a message to the transaction management system 630…The message…may include a checkout token,” [0154] – “The positioning and location-based services may be used, for example, to tag data transmitted from the mobile device 700 to transaction management systems”;
in response to receiving the TID and the second geographical location data from the second telecommunications device, the payment server comparing the received TID from the second telecommunications device to the generated TID […] [0109] – “the system 230 matches the customer checkout token received at 464 with a merchant checkout token received or looked up at 452,” and
in response to the received TID matching the generated TID […], the payment server transmitting to the second telecommunications device, over the network, invoice information related to the payment amount and a payment confirmation request [0109] - “If a match is found, the transaction details associated with the merchant checkout token and the corresponding merchant payment authorization request are used to create a response to the request at 468,” [0110] – “The transaction information (including…the transaction amount)…are transmitted to the customer’s mobile device 202 at 468”; and
Laracey further discloses in [0110] that processing continues where the system receives a customer payment authorization request message, thereby suggesting the response including the transaction amount transmitted at 468 acts as a payment confirmation request for the customer.
in response to receiving the invoice information and the payment confirmation request from the payment server, the second telecommunications device transmitting an authorization order to the payment server to release the payment amount to the first telecommunications device [0110] – “Processing continues at 470 where the system 230 receives a customer payment authorization request message which includes the customer’s selected payment account(s) for use in completing the transaction.”
Laracey does disclose in [0154] that location data may be used to further identify the identity of a merchant and assist in fraud detection by insuring that the mobile device is in close proximity to the point of sale location. However, Laracey does not expressly disclose
the payment server confirming the first geographical location data;
the payment server comparing the second geographical location data to the first geographical location data, and
the second geographical location data matching the first geographical location data.
Ellis discloses a system and method for a mobile wallet. Specifically, Ellis discloses
the payment server confirming the first geographical location data Col. 16, lines 36-39 – “the bank computer system 120 determines the location…of the merchant computer system 140 using location information provided by each”;
the payment server comparing the second geographical location data to the first geographical location data Col. 16, lines 25-26 – “the location of mobile device 110 and the location of the merchant are compared to ensure a match,” and
the second geographical location data matching the first geographical location data Col. 15, lines 1-4 – “if locations…are within a predetermined distance of each other, then the payment from the mobile wallet may be approved,” Col. 16, lines 29-31 – “a match is ensured by determining the distance between the two locations and ensuring that the distance is within a predetermined distance.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey’s mobile payment processing method with the teachings of confirming, comparing, and matching the locations of the mobile device and merchant in Ellis to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make this combination to help prevent fraudulent transactions by ensuring the mobile device is at the same location as the merchant computer system Ellis, Col. 16, lines 27-29.
Re Claim 2, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein the first geographical location data comprise geographical coordinates of the first telecommunications device Ellis, Col. 11, lines 61-63 – “The location determination logic 1712 (of the mobile device 110) may use a satellite (GPS) sensor or cellular towers to determine the location coordinates of the mobile device 110,” Col. 16, lines 25-26 – “the location of mobile device 110 and the location of the merchant are compared to ensure a match.”
Since the location of the mobile device 110, which is in location coordinates, is compared to the location of the merchant, this suggests that the location of the merchant is also in location coordinates.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey’s mobile payment processing method with the teachings of confirming, comparing, and matching the location coordinates of the mobile device and merchant in Ellis to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make this combination to help prevent fraudulent transactions by ensuring the mobile device is at the same location as the merchant computer system Ellis, Col. 16, lines 27-29.
Re Claim 3, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein the second geographical location data comprise geographical coordinates of the second telecommunications device Ellis, Col. 11, lines 61-63 – “The location determination logic 1712 (of the mobile device 110) may use a satellite (GPS) sensor or cellular towers to determine the location coordinates of the mobile device 110.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey’s mobile payment processing method with the teachings of confirming, comparing, and matching the location coordinates of the mobile device and merchant in Ellis to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make this combination to help prevent fraudulent transactions by ensuring the mobile device is at the same location as the merchant computer system Ellis, Col. 16, lines 27-29.
Re Claim 4, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein prior to transmitting with the first telecommunications device the request for the TID, registering the second telecommunications device with the payment server Laracey, [0064] - “before a customer can use a mobile device…to conduct a purchase transaction using the present invention, the customer must perform a registration process,” [0066] - “account creation includes…information identifying one or more mobile device(s) from which the customer wishes to make transactions.”
Re Claim 5, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 4, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein registering the second telecommunications device with the payment server comprises:
transmitting from the second telecommunications device to the payment server a device ID associated with the second telecommunications device, a phone number associated with the second telecommunications device, and a payment method Laracey, [0065] – “customer may operate an Internet browser (either on a mobile device…) to access a registration Web page,” [0066] – “Each mobile device 202 may, for example, be identified by its phone number and/or other unique identifier(s),” [0067] – “customer provides information about one or more payment devices or payment accounts that the customer wishes to have associated with the payment system”; and
upon receiving the device ID, the phone number, and the payment method, the payment server linking the second telecommunications device to the payment method Fig. 9 and storing the device ID, the phone number, and the payment method to a database Laracey, [0064] – “Data collected or provided in association with the process 300 may be stored at or be accessible to one or more databases associated with the transaction management system.”
Re Claim 6, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 5, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein upon receiving the TID from the second telecommunications device, the payment server validating whether the second telecommunications device is registered with the payment server and a payment method is associated with the second telecommunications device Laracey, [0098] – “processing may continue at 432 where the mobile device 202 transmits the customer checkout token to the transaction management system 230 as a customer transaction lookup request for payment account information and transaction details…the transaction lookup request includes information associated with the identity of the customer…This information, coupled with information about the mobile device 202, allows the transaction management system 230 to determine that it is interacting with an authorized user, allowing the system to locate the appropriate list of payment accounts for the user.”
Re Claim 7, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 6, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein the payment server upon generating the TID, storing the TID, […] and a merchant ID associated with the first telecommunications device to the database Laracey, [0123] – “allow the management of retailer or merchant profiles, their identification codes, and the like…may manage the distribution, assignment and use of checkout tokens for each merchant location,” [0138] – “The checkout token may be…retrieved from a set of one or more available check out tokens,” thereby suggesting merchant ID and checkout tokens are stored.
Laracey discloses access to a payment history [0120]. However, Laracey does not expressly disclose storing the payment amount.
Ellis discloses in Col. 15, lines 39-41 – “store each financial transaction that occurred. Each financial transaction may include the amount of the transaction and the merchant.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey’s mobile payment processing method and payment history with the teachings of storing payment amount and associated merchant in Ellis. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable building a profile for the account holder and thereby provide more relevant information regarding interests, hobbies, and so on to the account holder Ellis Col. 18, line 60 – Col. 19, line 7.
Re Claim 8, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 7, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein the payment server upon releasing the payment amount to the first telecommunications device, storing transaction information related to the merchant ID and the payment method used to pay the payment amount to the database Ellis, Col. 22, lines 1-5 – “the account holder may have a tendency to use specific credit cards at specific stores. Hence, at the time of a transaction, the past transaction history may be analyzed to determine what credit card the account holder typically uses at the store where the transaction is occurring.” This suggests that the past transaction history stores both the payment method used, i.e. specific credit card used, and the store at which the credit card was used, i.e. merchant ID.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey’s mobile payment processing method and payment history with the teachings of storing payment method used and associated merchant in Ellis. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable building a profile for the account holder and provide more relevant payment options to the account holder for the transaction Ellis, Col. 18, line 60 – Col. 19, line 7, Col. 21, lines 49-54.
Re Claim 9, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 7, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein the payment server upon generating the TID, further creating a timestamp corresponding to a time when the TID is first generated Laracey, Claim 4 – “checkout token further comprises information usable to identify at least one of (i) a timestamp,” and storing the timestamp to the database [0138] – “The checkout token may be…retrieved from a set of one or more available check out tokens,” thereby suggesting checkout token, and therefore, the timestamp, is stored.
Re Claim 12, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, wherein communicating the TID from the first telecommunications device to the second telecommunications device comprises verbal communication between a first user operating the first telecommunications device and a second user operating the second telecommunications device Laracey, [0098] – “the checkout token 210 may be read…into the payment application of the mobile device.”
Re Claim 13, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein communicating the TID from the first telecommunications device to the second telecommunications device comprises transmitting the TID via the network Laracey [0017] – “the checkout token is obtained by the mobile device by…wireless communication,” [0020] – “the term “wireless” is used to refer to unwired remote communication techniques, such as, for example…wifi.”
Re Claim 14, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein communicating the TID from the first telecommunications device to the second telecommunications device comprises transmitting the TID via any of a Bluetooth connection, a Wi-Fi connection, and a Near Field Communication (NFC) Laracey, [0098] – e.g. Bluetooth communication.
Re Claim 15, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, and Laracey in view of Ellis further teach wherein the first telecommunications device corresponds to a payee telecommunications device Fig. 2 208 – merchant and the second telecommunications device corresponds to a payer telecommunications device Fig. 2 202, [0050] - customer.
Claims 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laracey U.S. 2011/0251892 in view of Ellis et al. U.S. Patent 8,639,621 (herein as “Ellis”) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kannanari U.S. Patent 8,682,802.
Re Claim 10, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 9, however, Laracey in view of Ellis do not explicitly teach wherein the payment server upon creating the timestamp, further defining a duration period for which the TID is active.
Kannanari discloses mobile payments using payment tokens. Specifically, Kannanari discloses
wherein the payment server upon creating the timestamp, further defining a duration period for which the TID is active Col. 8, lines 49-53 – “create an expiration time associated with the payment token created…the expiration time may be a few minutes.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey in view of Ellis’ mobile payment processing method and checkout tokens with the teachings of defining an expiration time in Kannanari to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make the combination to allow the user to thwart misuse of payment tokens if the user loses or misplaces his or her mobile telephone Kannanari Col. 2, lines 49-50.
Re Claim 11, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 9, however, Laracey in view of Ellis do not explicitly teach wherein the payment server upon creating the timestamp, further defining an expiration date and time for the TID.
Kannanari discloses mobile payments using payment tokens. Specifically, Kannanari discloses
wherein the payment server upon creating the timestamp, further defining an expiration date and time for the TID Col. 8, lines 49-53 – “create an expiration time associated with the payment token created.”
Kannanari discloses an expiration time, however, does not expressly disclose a date. However, the instant specification does not define a “date” or any specific format for the expiration date and time. Under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, a “date” is interpreted to mean the time at which an event occurs (merriam-webster.com). Therefore, Kannanari’s expiration time expressed in days, hours, and/or minutes Col. 8, lines 48-63, can be reasonably interpreted to be a “date.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey in view of Ellis’ mobile payment processing method and checkout tokens with the teachings of defining an expiration time in Kannanari to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make the combination to allow the user to thwart misuse of payment tokens if the user loses or misplaces his or her mobile telephone Kannanari Col. 2, lines 49-50.
Re Claim 16, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, however, Laracey in view of Ellis do not explicitly teach wherein in response to the received TID from the first telecommunications device not matching the generated TID by the payment server and the first geographical location data not matching the second geographical location data, the payment server transmitting to the second telecommunications device, via the network, an error message indicating a payment error.
Laracey discloses considering the following conditions for a transaction to continue processing: 1) matching the received and generated checkout token [0109], 2) the location data of the mobile device and merchant to be in close proximity with one another [0154]. Laracey in view of Ellis discloses matching the location data received between the merchant and mobile device to prevent fraudulent transactions, as explained above in claim 1.
However, Laracey in view of Ellis do not explicitly teach the payment server transmitting to the second telecommunications device, via the network, an error message indicating a payment error when such conditions are not satisfied.
Kannanari discloses in Col. 4, lines 13-17 – “When the payment token 116 is invalid and/or the conditions are not satisfied, the host servers 112 may transmit the answer 130 as a rejection of the payment request 128. The host servers 112 may also communicate the answer 130 to the user device 108.”
It would have been obvious to modify Laracey in view of Ellis’ conditions for continued payment processing with the teachings of transmitting a rejection answer, i.e. error message, when the condition(s) are not satisfied in Kannanari to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make this combination to notify the payor/user that the transaction cannot continue and therefore better inform the payor the transaction status.
Re Claim 17, Laracey in view of Ellis teach the method of claim 1, however, Laracey in view of Ellis do not explicitly teach wherein the TID is a transient TID that is active for a predetermined period of time.
Kannanari discloses mobile payments using payment tokens. Specifically, Kannanari discloses
wherein the TID is a transient TID that is active for a predetermined period of time Col. 8, lines 49-53 – “create an expiration time associated with the payment token created…the expiration time may be a few minutes.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laracey in view of Ellis’ mobile payment processing method and check out tokens with the teachings of a predetermined expiration time in Kannanari to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make the combination to allow the user to thwart misuse of payment tokens if the user loses or misplaces his or her mobile telephone Kannanari Col. 2, lines 49-50.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tavares U.S. Patent 8,706,557 directed to systems and methods to identify merchants, see at least Col. 5, lines 13-19.
Adiseshann U.S. 2010/0185544 directed to method and system for making a payment through a mobile communication device, see at least [0027]-[0030].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698