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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are current pending. Claims 1, 14, and 20 were amended.
Re: II. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 3-4, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 under US 2019/0333016 (Phillips) in view of US 2008/0082821 (Pritikin) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of US 2019/0333016 to Phillips et al. (hereinafter, “Phillips”) in view of US 2008/0082821 to Pritikin (hereinafter, “Pritikin”) in further view of US 2020/0219008 to Franceschi et al. (hereinafter, “Franceschi”) and in further view of US 2005/0097005 to Fargo (hereinafter, “Fargo”). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for details.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites “a user interface” and is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 1 recites “a user interface”. It is unclear if these limitations are referring to the same interface, or two distinct interfaces are being claimed.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0333016 to Phillips et al. (hereinafter, “Phillips”) in view of US 2008/0082821 to Pritikin (hereinafter, “Pritikin”) in further view of US 2020/0219008 to Franceschi et al. (hereinafter, “Franceschi”) and in further view of US 2005/0097005 to Fargo (hereinafter, “Fargo”).
As per claim 1: Phillips discloses: A cryptographic encryption system, the system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to (a facilitation platform for secure receiving, processing, and delivery of product orders [Phillips, ¶0014]; ]Fig. 2 depicts a computing environment 200 in which systems and/or methods are implemented [Phillips, ¶0082]): receive, from a computing device via an (a direct wired/wireless network connection [Phillips, ¶0020]), one or more (a requestor user device sends a request to the facilitation platform, wherein the request includes an amount value and a type of product (e.g., a cashier’s check, gift card, cash, etc.) [Phillips, ¶0020]); ascertain, from current quantity data indicating a current quantity of a resource, whether one or more criteria for securing the quantity is satisfied, the one or more criteria including the current quantity of the resource; authorize, based on the one or more criteria for securing the quantity being satisfied, production of the documentation having a secured quantity (verifying that the requestor’s account has enough money available to create the product by comparing the amount specified in the request with the available account balance, thereby, verifying the request such that it can be processed [Phillips, ¶0021]); transmit, via the (the facilitation platform sends verification information to the requestor user device, wherein the verification information includes the location for product pickup [Phillips, ¶0033]); receive, via the (the request also includes information associated with a location of the requestor [Phillips, ¶0020]; the location of the requestor is used to select a location where the product can be picked up [Phillips, ¶0023]; a model is trained on a set of past requests and a set of optimal product delivery device selections (the location), wherein the model is used to select one or more product delivery devices [Phillips, ¶0028-0031])(using the location associated of the requestor, the facilitation platform selects a product delivery device (the destination where the product is picked up) [Phillips, ¶0023]; the operating times of the product delivery device is considered as a factor in selecting the product delivery device [Phillips, ¶0026]);(the verification information is sent to the (selected) product delivery device [Phillips, ¶0023, 0033]); and transmit, via the (a time of operation and/or availability concerning the product delivery device is also provided in the verification information [Phillips, ¶0033]).
While Phillips suggests operating in a secure manner by the facilitation platform [Phillips, ¶0014], Phillips does not explicitly disclose operating in an “encrypted” manner as recited throughout the claimed limitations (see the strikethrough limitations). However, encrypted network communications were a well-known and established process in the field of computer networks. For example, the BACKGROUND of [Pritikin, ¶0004-0007] disclosed establishing secured by exchanging keys to enable encrypted communications for sensitive information, such as financial transactions (as in the current case of Phillips).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement any known secure manner in Phillips to achieve the secure facilitation platform for processing a product, such as encrypting networking data suggested in the BACKGROUND of Pritikin. Encrypted network communications were established concepts at that time and were also commonly used for protecting financial transactions [Pritikin, ¶0004]. Thereby, all financial transactions performed via the network connection of [Phillips, ¶0020] would have been encrypted to protect any sensitive from data leakage.
Phillips does not explicitly limit how the model is trained, rather that “a machine learning algorithm, a neural network algorithm, or another type of artificial intelligence approach” may be used for the training [Phillips, ¶0053]. Phillips does not explicitly disclose, but Franceschi discloses: the machine learning model being trained via an iterative training and testing loop comprising adjusting weight coefficients until any error in an output signal is less than a predetermined threshold (a learning loop on preprocessed training data can build a probabilistic distribution and iteratively update the prediction model via updating assigned weights to minimize an error function [Franceschi, ¶0046, 0049, 0054]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate any known machine learning training method in Phillips, such as the method described in Franceschi. Franceschi presents techniques to improve an evaluation of probabilistic distribution until an optimum probabilistic distribution is obtained (i.e., the results converge). See [Franceschi, ¶0012]. The techniques in Franceschi would have finetuned the model in Phillips to provide the best (optimal) product delivery device options for the user.
Furthermore, Phillips uses various factors, such as travel time (i.e., “distance”), time to create the product, ability of a product delivery device to secure the product, and much more, for determining and selecting a product delivery device [Phillips, ¶0025-0026]. Phillips does not explicitly disclose, but Fargo discloses: sort, based on sorting criteria comprising at least one of a distance from a current geolocation of the computing device and a time to produce the documentation, a list of pre-approved geographic locations comprising the geographic location and alternative geographic locations; display, via a user interface, the list of pre-approved geographic locations (a web-based interface displays a sorted list, by distance from a specified location of a user, of stores that meet the search criteria (e.g., the factors described in Phillips) [Fargo, ¶0058-0060]; furthermore, sorting can also be based on business data, such as distance, operating hours, etc. matching specified business requirements (i.e., requirements for the procuring the product for a user in Phillips) [Fargo, ¶0059])
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips to display a sorted list of available product delivery devices that would be capable of completing a product order, such as through the web-based interface disclosed by Fargo. Fargo is directed to an e-commerce system that provides shoppers on the web where products can be purchased and locally picked up. See [Fargo, ¶0001]. The system in Fargo is analogous to Phillips disclosure of providing and arranging a delivery of a purchased product at a particular location and time. See [Phillips, ¶0001]. The sorted list would have enabled users the flexibility to select the product delivery device for product pickup rather than have the system automatically pick the product delivery device for them.
As per claim 2: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the one or more criteria require that the current quantity of the resource meets or exceeds the quantity associated with the documentation (verifying that the requestor’s account has enough money available to create the produce by comparing the amount specified in the request with the available account balance [Phillips, ¶0021]).
As per claim 3: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating Pritikin with Phillips in claim 1 is also applicable in claim 3. Therefore, Phillips in view of Pritikin disclose: wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to cryptographically encrypt the encrypted notification data, the encrypted production data, and the encrypted retrieval data (device 300 represents the requestor user device, facilitation platform and/or the produce delivery device, wherein the device 300 includes a processor implemented in hardware [Phillips, ¶0098]; Pritikin discusses performing encrypted data communications over an authenticated connection that involves exchanging keys [Pritikin, ¶0006] – thus, in order to perform encryption/decryption over an authenticated network connection, it would inherently require the processors).
As per claim 4: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the encrypted location data include global positioning system coordinates as determined by a global positioning system that detects the global positioning system coordinates by triangulating cellular signals of the computing device (determining a geographic location of the requestor user device using global positioning system [Phillips, ¶0083]).
As per claim 5: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein geographic location comprises an entity facility of an entity that secures the quantity associated with the documentation (the product delivery device may be in a secure location like a bank (“entity”) branch [Phillips, ¶0026]).
As per claim 6: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the one or more computing devices comprise entity computing devices of the entity (the product delivery device may be in a secure location like a bank (“entity”) branch [Phillips, ¶0026]; furthermore, the product delivery device may a particular type of device, or have a particular affiliation [Phillips, ¶0025, 0094]).
As per claim 7: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the attribute data comprises hours of operation of an entity facility (operating time of a bank branch where the product delivery device is located [Phillips, ¶0026]).
As per claim 8: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the attribute data comprises a type of facility present at the geographic location (a factor for selecting the product delivery device includes the type of location: secure or unsecured, such as a bank branch or a parking lot, respectively [Phillips, ¶0025]).
As per claim 9: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the timeframe for retrieval is limited in duration in accordance with one or more predefined rules (how long the product delivery product will hold the product before destroying/invalidating the product [Phillips, ¶0026]).
As per claim 10: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the encrypted production data initiates (during the verification process, the requestor’s account balance is compared with the specified amount to determine if there are sufficient funds [Phillips, ¶0021]; the verification information is sent to the product delivery device, wherein the verification process may be done locally at the product delivery device [Phillips, ¶0035]; thus, the deduction of the funds is part of the verification process would have to been completed in order to provide any product in return),(a “create on time” for the product may be included in the request [Phillips, ¶0020]; prior to selecting the product delivery device and sending the verification information [Phillips, ¶0033], factors that include resources, time, and capability of the product delivery device are considered [Phillips, ¶0026]).
As per claim 11: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 10. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to transmit one or more notifications to the computing device indicating the documentation is available for retrieval (a product ready time for pick-up [Phillips, ¶0134]).
As per claim 13: Phillips in view Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Phillips discloses: wherein the encrypted retrieval data initiates display, via a user interface of the computing device, of location information of the geographic location identified (the verification information sent to the requestor user device includes location of the product delivery device [Phillips, ¶0033]; the requestor user device includes an interface that includes displaying the pickup location of the product delivery device [Phillips, ¶0138]).
As per claim 14: Claim 14 is different in overall scope from claim 1. Claim 14 is directed to a “computing system” corresponding to the “cryptographic encryption system” of claim 1. Claim 14 do not disclose limitations involving a “timeframe” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is broader in scope from claim 1, and the same response provided in claim 1 is also applicable in claim 14.
As per claim 15: Claim 15 incorporates all limitations of claim 14. Claim 15 is directed to a computing system corresponding to the cryptographic encryption system of claim 2. Therefore, the responses provided for claims 2 and 14 are equally applicable to claim 15.
As per claim 16: Claim 16 incorporates all limitations of claim 14. Claim 16 is directed to a computing system corresponding to the cryptographic encryption system of claim 4. Therefore, the responses provided for claims 4 and 14 are equally applicable to claim 16.
As per claim 17: Claim 17 incorporates all limitations of claim 14. Claim 17 is directed to a computing system corresponding to the cryptographic encryption system of claim 5. Therefore, the responses provided for claims 5 and 14 are equally applicable to claim 17.
As per claim 18: Claim 18 incorporates all limitations of claim 14. Claim 18 is directed to a computing system corresponding to the cryptographic encryption system of claim 10. Therefore, the responses provided for claims 10 and 14 are equally applicable to claim 18.
As per claim 19: Claim 19 incorporates all limitations of claim 14. Claim 19 is directed to a computing system corresponding to the cryptographic encryption system of claim 8. Therefore, the responses provided for claims 8 and 14 are equally applicable to claim 19.
As per claim 20: Claim 20 is different in overall scope from claim 1. Claim 20 is directed to a “method” corresponding to the “cryptographic encryption system” of claim 1. Phillips further discloses the method performed by their system [Phillips, ¶0004]. Therefore, responses provided herein and in claim 1 are also applicable in claim 20.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo and in further view of US 2016/0014552 to Hanson et al. (hereinafter, “Hanson”).
As per claim 12: Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo disclose all limitations of claim 1. Phillips in view of Pritikin, Franceschi, and Fargo do not explicitly disclose but Hanson discloses: wherein the encrypted retrieval data initiates display, via a user interface of the computing device, of an updated current quantity of the resource (a notification that includes balance information is generated for a user after completing a transaction [Hanson, ¶0050]; Hanson is directed to analogous art of initiating (or pre-staging) a transaction from a computing device prior to arriving to a banking center to complete a transaction [Hanson, ¶0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to present the current balance to the user via an interface (such as the interface discussed in [Phillips, ¶0041, 0138]) after performing a financial transaction. It was common practice to provide a post-balance account value to a banking customer to allow them to make future financial decisions and avoid a negative balance, which often leads to fees.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494