Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 22, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 20, 2025, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beattie et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,562,212).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Beattie et al. teaches a computer implemented method of issuing electronic certificates for establishing credential of or in association with an applicant (abstract), comprising the step of: receiving, via a receiving module, a request from applicant’s device for issuance of an electronic certificate for establishing credential of or in association with the applicant, the request comprising certificate information and application identification (col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 25); verifying, via a verification module, the applicant identification from a registration database (col. 1, lines 27-55 and col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 11); identifying, via an identification module, one or more relevant certificate issuing units according to the certificate information from a plurality of independently operated certificate issuing units (col. 5, lines 50-65); and upon independently verifying the certificate information by the one or more relevant certificate issuing units, issuing, via a certificate issuing module, an electronic certificate in accordance with the request (col. 5, lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 2, Beattie et al. teaches wherein the step of receiving a request from the applicant’s device comprises receiving information communicated wirelessly from the applicant's device (col. 6, lines 55-62).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Beattie et al. teaches wherein the step of receiving a request from the applicant’s device comprises scanning of a two-dimensional code by the applicant's device and/or receiving via short range wireless communication by the applicant's device (col. 6, lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 4, Beattie et al. teaches further comprising the step of transmitting the issued electronic certificate to the applicant's device (col. 8, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 5, Beattie et al. teaches wherein the step of independently verifying the certificate information by the one or more relevant certificate issuing units comprises matching data relevant to the certificate information from one or more databases (col. 4, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 6, Beattie et al. teaches further comprising the step of storing the issued electronic certificate in association with the applicant, with the stored electronic certificate being accessible by one or more of the applicant's device and/or an issuer's device (col. 9, line 61 through col. 10, line 4).
Regarding claim 7, Beattie et al. teaches wherein the plurality of certificate issuing units are independently operable by respective certificate issuers via corresponding issuers' devices (col. 8, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 8, Beattie et al. teaches further comprising the step of customizing format of the electronic certificates by the respective certificate issuers (col. 7, lines 4-29).
Regarding claim 15, Beattie et al. teaches wherein the certificate requesting module is adapted to receive the request for issuing the electronic certificate from the applicant’s device via wireless communication (col. 6, lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 17, Beattie et al. teaches wherein the plurality of certificate issuing units of the certificate issuing module are independently operable by respective certificate issuers via corresponding issuers' devices (col. 8, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 18, Beattie et al. teaches further comprising a storage module for storing the issued electronic certificate in associate with the applicant (col. 9, line 61 through col. 10, line 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,562,212) in view of Kohli (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0101870).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Beattie et al. teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 6 above. However, Beattie et al. does not teach classification of the certificate. Kohli teaches wherein the issued electronic certificate is stored under classification by type of the issued certificate, with the classification being displayable at the applicant's device (paragraph 0003) and wherein the issued electronic certificate is stored under classification by the certificate information and/or the applicant identification, with the classification being displayable at the issuer's device (paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine storing classification of the certificate, as taught by Kohli, with the method of Beattie et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because the classification tells whether the certificate is a purchase type card or a redemption type card (debit/credit vs. gift card).
Regarding claim 12, Beattie et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Beattie et al. does not teach sharing. Kohli teaches further comprising the step of sharing the issued electronic certificate to one or more designated recipients and/or social media networks (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to sharing the certificate, as taught by Kohli, with the method of Beattie et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because sharing can be used for gifts.
Regarding claim 13, Beattie et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Beattie et al. doesn’t teach barcodes. Kohli teaches wherein the step of issuing the electronic certificate comprises generating a two-dimensional code in associate with the certificate (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine barcodes associated with certificates, as taught by Kohli, with the method of Beattie et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because barcodes can be easily scanned by any device and the information read quickly.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Beattie et al. teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above. However, Beattie et al. does not teach reward points. Kohli teaches further comprising the step of issuing reward points to the applicant, wherein the reward points are provided in the form of one or more credits, loyalty points, cash coupons, vouchers and/or user ratings, tiers, or rankings (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine rewards for certificates, as taught by Kohli, with the method of Beattie et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because rewards further drive customer loyalty which allows for more sales.
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 BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433