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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to a non-final Office action on 09/15/2025 amending claims 1-11 and 13-20. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 and prior art rejections. Examiner has, however, maintained the objection for claims 15-20; established new objections for claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, and 20; established new § 101 rejection for claims 1-20; and established new grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 1-20 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection and the new grounds of § 103 rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the instant rejection of claims 1-20 is the FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
§ 101 Rejection:
Applicant argues in pages 12, 21, and 24 (respectively) of Applicant’s Remarks:
Step 2A: The part of the claim that recites "cause the second application to be executed using the signed token and the indicator of the second application" does not recite an abstract idea because causing and application to be executed, the execution updating a record at a second account associated with a second user on the second server, cannot not considered an abstract idea . . .
The claimed invention thus integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by causing the second application associated with the second user to be executed using the signed token and the indicator of the second application, the execution updating a record at the second account, on a second server, associated with the second user.
[Step 2B:] Applicant submits that arguendo even if some limitations are generic, the claims recite specific limitations, which result in an unconventional and ordered combination of the limitations, that renders the claims patent-eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Step 2A: Applicant’s claim limitations are recited at high level of generality lacking technological details and specifics regarding how a problem of technology is solved, i.e., how the technology is improved. There is no recitation that integrates an abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under Step 2A of the Test.
Step 2B: The Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Bascom explaining: “Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom …The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.” (10-11). Similarly here, the instant claims 1-20 focus on gathering and updating information, but do not use anything besides entirely conventional, generic technology of processor and memory. While the Federal Circuit Court in Bascom found non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, no such non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements is present with the instant claims. Therefore, the instant claims 1-20 are not patentable under Step 2B of the Test.
Prior Art Rejection: Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments directed to the previous grounds of prior art rejection but they are moot in view of new grounds of § 103 rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informality:
receive an indicator of a second application on a second server, for execution on a second OS, the second application being of a second application type not compatible with the first application type, the second application being chosen by a second user for interacting with the record change request and account information of a second account associated with the second user, the interaction including the second user transmitting personally identifiable information data of the second user to the first server for taking action on the record change request;
It seems that (1) either the word “interaction” is a typographical error and should be “indicator,” or (2) there should be indefinite article “an” in front of it because the word “interaction” has not appeared previously in the claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
cause the second user to scan the QR code, the scanning providing the data to a link service direct-to-consumer (D2C) application;
execute the D2C application, the execution providing a Java Web Token (JWT) signed by the paylink service;
There should be no article in front of “data” because it has not appeared in the claims previously and the words “Java Web Token” should not be capitalized. Applicant could amend claims 5 and 10 to recite:
cause the second user to scan the QR code, the scanning providing [[the]] data to a link service direct-to-consumer (D2C) application;
execute the D2C application, the execution providing a java web token (JWT) signed by the paylink service;
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informality:
obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a website associated with a paylink service.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “paylink service” because it has occurred in the claims previously. Applicant could amend claims 6, 13, and 20 to recite:
obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a website associated with [[a]] the paylink service.
Claims 15-20 are objected to because of the following informality: each claim 15-20 recites: “one or more non-transitory computer storage media.” Each claim 15-20 should be amended to recite: “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-7 is a system and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 8-14 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process), which is also one of the statutory categories of invention. Still further, the claimed invention of claims 15-20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-20, however, recite an abstract idea of updating a record at the second account associated with the user in response to the record change request from a first account. The creation of updating a record at the second account associated with the user in response to the record change request from a first account, as recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, is found in the following step:
“causing the second application to be executed using the signed token and the indicator of the second application, the execution updating a record at the second account associated with the second user” (claims 1, 8, and 15).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract step recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements:
“a processor” (claims 1 and 15);
“a memory comprising computer program code” (claim 1);
“one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions” (claim 15);
“a first server” (claims 1, 8, and 15); and
“a second server” (claims 1, 8, and 15).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Also, the following additional limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“responsive to a first user initiating a record change request, receiving a link from a first application associated with the first user, the link being generated by a paylink service, the link containing identity data associated with the first user including data of a first account, the link being associated with the record change request associated with a first account, the first application being of a first application type and executing on a first operating system (OS)” (claims 1, 8, and 15);
“using the link, obtaining a signed token from a link service, wherein the signed token includes identity data associated with the first user including the data for the first account and the record change request” (claims 1, 8, and 15); and
“receiving an indicator of a second application on a second server, for execution on a second OS, the second application being of a second application type not compatible with the first application type, the second application being chosen by a second user for interacting with the record change request and account information of a second account associated with the second user, the interaction including the second user transmitting personally identifiable information data of the second user to the first server for taking action on the record change request” (claims 1, 8, and 15).
These additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, (see under Step 2A - Prong 2) are individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The Applicant’s Specification describes these additional elements in following terms:
[0102] The present disclosure is operable with a computing apparatus according to an embodiment as a functional block diagram 1200 in FIG. 12. In an example, components of a computing apparatus 1218 are implemented as a part of an electronic device according to one or more embodiments described in this specification. The computing apparatus 1218 comprises one or more processors 1219 which may be microprocessors, controllers, or any other suitable type of processors for processing computer executable instructions to control the operation of the electronic device. Alternatively, or in addition, the processor 1219 is any technology capable of executing logic or instructions, such as a hardcoded machine. In some examples, platform software comprising an operating system 1220 or any other suitable platform software is provided on the apparatus 1218 to enable application software 1221 to be executed on the device. In some examples, enabling peer-to-peer record change requests to be processed and associated record operations to be performed as described herein is accomplished by software, hardware, and/or firmware.
[0103] In some examples, computer executable instructions are provided using any computer-readable media that are accessible by the computing apparatus 1218. Computer-readable media include, for example, computer storage media such as a memory 1222 and communications media. Computer storage media, such as a memory 1222, include volatile and non-volatile, removable, and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or the like. Computer storage media include, but are not limited to, Random Access Memory (RAM), Read-Only Memory (ROM), Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), persistent memory, phase change memory, flash memory or other memory technology, Compact Disk Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage, shingled disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other non-transmission medium that can be used to store information for access by a computing apparatus. In contrast, communication media may embody computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or the like in a modulated data signal, such as a carrier wave, or other transport mechanism. As defined herein, computer storage media do not include communication media. Therefore, a computer storage medium should not be interpreted to be a propagating signal per se. Propagated signals per se are not examples of computer storage media. Although the computer storage medium (the memory 1222) is shown within the computing apparatus 1218, it will be appreciated by a person skilled in the art, that, in some examples, the storage is distributed or located remotely and accessed via a network or other communication link (e.g., using a communication interface 1223).
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving” and “obtaining” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “receiving” and “obtaining” information were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, “receive” and “obtain” information over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized “receiving” and “obtaining” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-7 depend on independent claim 1; dependent claims 9-14 depend on independent claim 8; and dependent claims 16-20 depend on independent claim 15. The elements in dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the link is generated without knowledge of an application to be used to open the link and contains no data of a compatible OS or compatible application to be used for opening the link” (claims 2, 9, and 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“displaying the link to the first user using an interface of a user device; and receiving an indication from the interface that the link has been activated, wherein obtaining the signed token is based on the link being activated” (claims 3, 10, and 17: where “displaying” is further narrowing the recited abstract idea; and “receiving” is insignificant extra solution activity);
“displaying at least one application that is compatible with the paylink service using an interface of a user device; and prompting the second user to select an application from the displayed at least one application, wherein the indicator of the second application is received in response to the prompt” (claims 4, 11, and 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“receiving the link includes displaying a quick response (QR) code, and the computer program code is configured to, with the processor, further cause the processor to: cause the second user to scan the QR code, the scanning providing the data to a link service direct-to-consumer (D2C) application; execute the D2C application, the execution providing a Java Web Token (JWT) signed by the paylink service; prompt the second user to choose an application; and launch the chosen application using the JWT, wherein JWT signature is verified using a public key of the paylink service, and wherein launching the chosen application causes an updating of the record at the second account associated with the second user” (claims 5, 12, and 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a website associated with a paylink service” (claims 6, 13, and 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a link service application” (claims 7 and 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
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 § 102 of this title, 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 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov (US 2013/0060689 A1) in view of Revankar (US 2020/0119905 A1).
As to Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
Oskolkov shows:
a processor, and a memory comprising computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the processor to (Oskolkov: page 2, ¶):
responsive to a first user initiating a record change request, receive a link from a first application associated with the first user and running on a first server, the link being generated by a paylink service, the link being associated with the record change request associated with the first account, the first application being of a first application type and executing on a first operating system (OS) (Oskolkov: page 6, ¶ 59 and ¶ 61; and page 22, ¶ 177);
using the link, obtain a signed token from the paylink service, wherein the signed token includes the identity data associated with the first user including the record change request (Oskolkov: page 7, ¶ 63);
receive an indicator of a second application on a second server, for execution on a second OS, the second application being of a second application type not compatible with the first application type, the second application being chosen by a second user for interacting with the record change request and account information of a second account associated with the second user, the interaction including the second user transmitting personally identifiable information data of the second user to the first server for taking action on the record change request (Oskolkov: page 7, ¶¶ 63-64; page 18, ¶ 145; and page 22, ¶ 177); and
cause the second application to be executed using the signed token and the indicator of the second application, the execution updating a record at the second account associated with the second user on the second server (Oskolkov: page 7, ¶¶ 63-64; and page 18, ¶ 145).
Oskolkov does not show:
the link containing identity data associated with the first user including data of a first account; and
the signed token includes the identity data associated with the first user including the data for the first account.
Revankar shows:
the link containing identity data associated with the first user including data of a first account (Revankar: page 9, ¶ 67); and
the signed token including the identity data associated with the first user including the data for the first account (Revankar: page 9, ¶ 67).
Motivation to combine Oskolkov and Revankar:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, the system, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of Oskolkov by the link containing identity data associated with the first user including data of a first account; and the signed token including the identity data associated with the first user including the data for the first account of Revankar in order to facilitate construction of customized smart contracts without requiring knowledge of the syntax of the smart contract execution environment (Revankar: page 1, ¶ 2).
As to claims 2, 9, and 16: Oskolkov in view of Revankar shows all the elements of claims 1, 8, and 15. Oskolkov also shows that the link is generated without knowledge of an application to be used to open the link and contains no data of a compatible OS or compatible application to be used for opening the link (Oskolkov: page 4, ¶¶ 46-48).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17: Oskolkov in view of Revankar shows all the elements of claims 1, 8, and 15. Oskolkov also shows displaying the link to the first user using an interface of a user device; and receive an indication from the interface that the link has been activated, wherein obtaining the signed token is based on the link being activated (Oskolkov: page 6, ¶ 58).
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov in view of Lindell (US 2024/0281798 A1).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18: Oskolkov in view of Revankar shows all the elements of claims 1, 8, and 15. Oskolkov in view of Revankar does not show displaying at least one application that is compatible with the paylink service using an interface of a user device; and prompting the user to select an application from the displayed at least one application, wherein the indicator of the second application is received in response to the prompt. Lindell shows displaying at least one application that is compatible with the paylink service using an interface of a user device; and prompting the user to select an application from the displayed at least one application, wherein the indicator of the second application is received in response to the prompt (Lindell: page 6, ¶ 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, the system, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of Oskolkov by displaying at least one application that is compatible with the paylink service using an interface of a user device; and prompting the user to select an application from the displayed at least one application, wherein the indicator of the second application is received in response to the prompt of Lindell in order to provide for the source device to execute a client application (e.g., a wallet application) that is used to interact with the custodial token platform (Lindell: page 5, ¶ 50).
As to claims 5, 12, and 19: Oskolkov shows all the elements of claims 1, 8, and 15. Oskolkov does not show that receiving the link includes displaying a quick response (QR) code, and the computer program code is configured to, with the processor, further cause the processor to: cause the second user to scan the QR code, the scanning providing the data to a link service direct-to-consumer (D2C) application; execute the D2C application, the execution providing a Java Web Token (JWT) signed by the paylink service; prompt the second user to choose an application; and launch the chosen application using the JWT, wherein JWT signature is verified using a public key of the paylink service, and wherein launching the chosen application causes an updating of the record at the second account associated with the second user. Lindell shows that receiving the link includes displaying a quick response (QR) code, and the computer program code is configured to, with the processor, further cause the processor to: cause the second user to scan the QR code, the scanning providing the data to a link service direct-to-consumer (D2C) application; execute the D2C application, the execution providing a Java Web Token (JWT) signed by the paylink service; prompt the second user to choose an application; and launch the chosen application using the JWT, wherein JWT signature is verified using a public key of the paylink service, and wherein launching the chosen application causes an updating of the record at the second account associated with the second user (Lindell: page 6, ¶ 53; and page 13, ¶ 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, the system, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of Oskolkov by receiving the link includes displaying a quick response (QR) code, and the computer program code is configured to, with the processor, further cause the processor to: cause the second user to scan the QR code, the scanning providing the data to a link service direct-to-consumer (D2C) application; execute the D2C application, the execution providing a Java Web Token (JWT) signed by the paylink service; prompt the second user to choose an application; and launch the chosen application using the JWT, wherein JWT signature is verified using a public key of the paylink service, and wherein launching the chosen application causes an updating of the record at the second account associated with the second user of Lindell in order to provide for the source device to execute a client application (e.g., a wallet application) that is used to interact with the custodial token platform (Lindell: page 5, ¶ 50).
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oskolkov in view of Revankar, and further in view of Huque (EP 3,944,178 A1).
As to claims 6, 13, and 20: Oskolkov in view of Revankar shows all the elements of claims 1, 8, and 15. Oskolkov in view of Revankar does not show that obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a website associated with a paylink service. Huque shows that obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a website associated with a paylink service (Huque: page 4, ¶ 29, ¶ 32, and ¶ 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, the system, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of Oskolkov in view of Revankar by obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a website associated with a paylink service of Huque in order to provide a way for a merchant application to initiate the payment in a single call and let the user choose amongst the payment applications present on the phone (Huque: page 2, ¶ 9).
As to claims 7 and 14: Oskolkov in view of Revankar shows all the elements of claims 1 and 8. Oskolkov in view of Revankar does not show that obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a link service application. Huque shows that obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a link service application (Huque: page 4, ¶ 29, ¶ 32, and ¶ 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Oskolkov in view of Revankar by obtaining the signed token using the received link, receiving the indicator of the second application, and causing the second application to be executed is performed using a link service application of Huque in order to provide a way for a merchant application to initiate the payment in a single call and let the user choose amongst the payment applications present on the phone (Huque: page 2, ¶ 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shauh (US 11,645,642 B2) discloses: “A mobile payment method includes the steps of providing a mobile payment device having mobile payment capability and a mobile identity. Providing transaction information for a transaction and sending the transaction information to a server. The server prepares a URL link containing the transaction information and sends the URL link to the mobile payment device using the mobile identity. Clicking on the URL link sets up a HTTPS session and program script and validation token are downloaded to the mobile device. The payment can then proceed.”
Tyler (US 9,852,417 B2) discloses: “Systems and methods are provided for facilitating peer-to-peer payment transactions using mobile devices. According to certain embodiments, a financial account for providing funds for a payment transaction is determined. User input including a payment amount for the payment transaction is received and a QR code that represents the payment amount is generated. The QR code is displayed on the display of a mobile device for purposes of scanning and processing by a second mobile device.”
S. Suratkar, M. Shirole and S. Bhirud, "Cryptocurrency Wallet: A Review," 2020 4th International Conference on Computer, Communication and Signal Processing (ICCCSP), Chennai, India, 2020, pp. 1-7.
M. Borkowski, M. Sigwart, P. Frauenthaler, T. Hukkinen and S. Schulte, "Dextt: Deterministic Cross-Blockchain Token Transfers," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 111030-111042, 2019.
A. G. Khan, A. H. Zahid, M. Hussain and U. Riaz, "Security Of Cryptocurrency Using Hardware Wallet And QR Code," 2019 International Conference on Innovative Computing (ICIC), Lahore, Pakistan, 2019, pp. 1-10.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691