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
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 6/26/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13 and 18-20 are amended, claims 2 and 12 are canceled, and claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are currently pending.
Claim objections have been withdrawn based on amendment.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendment and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Applicant’s argument with respect to specification has been fully considered, therefore specification objection has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 7/23/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutha (US 20160048835 A1), in view of Menefee et al. (US 20140114780 A1 and Menefee hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mutha teaches a payment device (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0043; back office server 30 is in communication with credit card terminals [CCT] 21, 22 and 23), comprising:
a housing (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0043; CCT comprises a housing. Paragraph 0087; back office server includes a server 625 that is a control box (housing)); and
a controller disposed within the housing (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0052; a computer/processor that can include one or more microprocessors. Paragraph 0006, 0007 and 0087; server 625 is a control box) and configured to:
receive at least one location signal (Paragraphs 0008 and 0070; determining location information associated with a mobile device based on strength of signal detected by wireless antennas at a retail location, the set of antennas 660 may detect a signal from a mobile device 605 within a range of the retail location 600. Paragraph 0104; antenna 660 may be a device used to transmit and/or receive radio) representing a location of a payment transceiver (Paragraphs 0017 and 0071; based on MAC address, calculating a distance from a point of sale to the at least one mobile device. In some embodiments, the method includes determining a location of the user at the retail location based on the calculated distance and storing the location of the user at the retail location in a customer record) or a range between the payment transceiver and an antenna (Paragraph 0071; the range may be based on the property boundaries of the retail location 600. In some embodiments, the range may be based on the location of various points of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600, for example and without limitation, inside of the retail store 602 and outside the retail store 602. In some embodiments, the range may be a distance around the retail location 600),
wherein the at least one location signal is at least one antenna signal received from the antenna (Paragraphs 0008 and 0070; determining location information associated with a mobile device based on strength of signal detected by wireless antennas at a retail location, the set of antennas 660 may detect a signal from a mobile device 605 within a range of the retail location 600. Paragraph 0104; antenna 660 may be a device used to transmit and/or receive radio);
determine, according to the at least one location signal, whether the location of the payment transceiver is within a payment processing zone (Paragraphs 0070, 0071 and 0104; antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range [and/or distance] from the retail location 600, range may be based on property boundaries of the retail location, and antenna 600 may be used with a radio transmitter or a radio receiver);
determine whether the payment device is an approved payment devices (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0060; back office manager receives a request to process a payment transaction from ECR 11 and/or CCT 21, and may validate and check the request to determine whether the request is consistent with payment processing requirements, and transmits the request to CCT manager 34. CCT manager may determine the CCT 21 is associated with the request for processing payment transaction), and
wherein only the approved payment devices are approved to process payments from the payment transceiver; and
process a payment from the payment transceiver (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0060; back office manager sends an authorization for the payment transaction to ECR 11) only when, at least, the payment transceiver is within the payment processing zone (Paragraphs 0070, 0071 and 0104; antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range [and/or distance] from the retail location 600, range may be based on property boundaries of the retail location, and antenna 600 may be used with a radio transmitter or a radio receiver) and the payment device is an approved payment device (Paragraph 0060; back office manager receives a request to process a payment transaction from ECR 11 and/or CCT 21, and may validate and check the request to determine whether the request is consistent with payment processing requirements, and transmits the request to CCT manager 34. CCT manager may determine the CCT 21 is associated with the request for processing payment transaction).
Mutha does not explicitly teach determine whether the payment device belongs to a set of pre-approved payment devices, wherein the set of pre-approved payment devices is selected by a user of the payment transceiver, wherein only the set of pre-approved payment devices are approved. In an analogous art, Menefee teaches determine whether the payment device belongs to a set of pre-approved payment devices, wherein the set of pre-approved payment devices is selected by a user of the payment transceiver, wherein only the set of pre-approved payment devices are approved (Paragraphs 0045 and 0046; detection of whether the user device is registered with the payment/offer service, which enables the checkout device to process transactions from the user device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mutha and Menefee because the payment system may be enhanced and interactions with it may be accelerated by adding a device or devices at the merchant that increase the functionality of the system and automate one or more aspects of the process (Menefee, Paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches wherein determining whether the payment device is within the payment processing zone comprises determining the range between the payment transceiver and the antenna according to the antenna signal and comparing the range to a range threshold (Paragraphs 0070, 0071 and 0104; antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range [and/or distance] from the retail location 600, range may be based on property boundaries of the retail location. In some embodiments, the range may be based on the location of various points of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600, for example and without limitation, inside of the retail store 602 and outside the retail store 602. In some embodiments, the range may be a distance around the retail location 600).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches wherein the at least one location signal is a plurality of antenna signals, respectively received from a plurality of antennas (Paragraph 0067; the retail location 600 may include a retail store 602, a plurality of point of sale locations 650, and a plurality of antennas 660. Paragraph 0070; a retail location 600 includes a set of antennas 660. In some embodiments, one or more antennas 660 may be arranged inside of a retail store 602 at a retail location 600. In some embodiments, one or more antennas 660 may be arranged outside of a retail store 602, but at a retail location 600. In some embodiments, the antennas 660 are arranged in a triangular shape at a retail location 600. In some embodiments, the antennas are arranged around a plurality of point of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600. The set of antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range from the retail location 600. In some embodiments, the set of antennas 660 may detect a signal from a mobile device 605 within a range of the retail location 600. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6A, a first set of antennas 660 may be arranged in a triangular formation inside of a retail store 602 to detect a mobile device 605 and a second set of antennas 660 may be arranged in a triangular formation outside the retail store 602, but around fuel dispensing locations 650 to detect a mobile device 605).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches wherein the location signal is encoded data representing a location of the payment device (Paragraph 0070; a retail location 600 includes a set of antennas 660. In some embodiments, the antennas are arranged around a plurality of point of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600), wherein determining whether the payment device is within the payment processing zone comprises determining whether the location of the payment transceiver is within a boundary of the payment processing zone (Figure 5A and Paragraph 0064; at a point of sale lane, a user requests processing of a payment transaction, a request is sent to back office and identify which of a plurality of CCTs at a retail location is associated with the request).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches querying a remote server for an approval status of the payment device with respect to the payment transceiver (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0060; CCT 21 sends 404 a request to payment processing service 51 to authorize the payment transaction. Payment processing service 51 receives the request to authorize the transaction, and sends 405 a request to authorization service 71 to authorize the transaction. Payment processing service 51 receives 406 and authorization for the payment transaction from authorization service 71. An authorization may be any form of computer readable indicator that the payment transaction has been authorized or approved by an authorization service. CCT 21 receives 407 an authorization from payment processing service 51).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches the step of querying the payment transceiver for an approval status of the payment device with respect to the payment transceiver (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0060; CCT 21 receives 407 an authorization from payment processing service 51 and sends an authorization to CCT Manager 34 which does not include PCI scope information. CCT Manager 34 receives 408 an authorization from CCT 21, which does not include PCI scope information. The CCT manager sends an authorization to back office manager 32. Back office manager 32 receives 409 an authorization from CCT Manager 34. Back office manager 32 sends 410 an authorization for the payment transaction to ECR 11).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine, according to the at least one location signal (Paragraph 0070; a retail location 600 includes a set of antennas 660. In some embodiments, the antennas are arranged around a plurality of point of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600), whether the location of the payment transceiver is within a payment device approval zone, wherein the step of determining whether the payment device is an approved payment device occurs when the payment transceiver is within the payment device approval zone (Paragraphs 0017 and 0071; based on MAC address, calculating a distance from a point of sale to the at least one mobile device. In some embodiments, the method includes determining a location of the user at the retail location based on the calculated distance and storing the location of the user at the retail location in a customer record. The range [between the mobile device and the CCT/retail store] may be based on the property boundaries of the retail location 600. In some embodiments, the range may be based on the location of various points of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600, for example and without limitation, inside of the retail store 602 and outside the retail store 602. In some embodiments, the range may be a distance around the retail location 600).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutha in view of Menefee, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Oshima et al. (US 20070109262 A1 and Oshima hereinafter).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 4 and 14, as described above. Further, Mutha teaches wherein determining whether the payment device is within the payment processing zone comprises: determining a range between the payment transceiver and the plurality of antennas (Paragraph 0070; a retail location 600 includes a set of antennas 660. In some embodiments, the antennas are arranged around a plurality of point of sale locations 650 at the retail location 600. The set of antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range from the retail location 600. In some embodiments, the set of antennas 660 may detect a signal from a mobile device 605 within a range of the retail location 600. Paragraph 0071; range may be based on the property boundaries of the retail location, and a set of antennas 660 may detect a signal from more than one mobile device 605. An antenna 660 may detect any number of mobile devices 605 that are within a range of the antenna 660); determining the location of the payment transceiver according to the range between the payment transceiver and the plurality of antennas (Paragraphs 0070, 0071 and 0104; antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range [and/or distance] from the retail location 600, range may be based on property boundaries of the retail location, and antenna 600 may be used with a radio transmitter or a radio receiver); and determining whether the location of the payment transceiver is within a boundary of the payment processing zone (Paragraphs 0070, 0071 and 0104; antennas 660 may detect a signal within a range [and/or distance] from the retail location 600, range may be based on property boundaries of the retail location, and antenna 600 may be used with a radio transmitter or a radio receiver).
The combination of Mutha and Menefee does not explicitly teach determining a range between the payment transceiver and each antenna of the plurality of antennas; and determining the location of the payment transceiver according to the range between the payment transceiver and each antenna of the plurality of antennas. In an analogous art, Oshima teaches determining a range between the payment transceiver and each antenna of the plurality of antennas (Paragraph 0229; once the positional relationship between the base station and each broadcasting antenna is known, it is possible to know the distance between each broadcasting antenna and cellular phone accurately); and determining the location of the payment transceiver according to the range between the payment transceiver and each antenna of the plurality of antennas (Paragraphs 0229 and 0258; payment using T mode cellular phone 501, know the distance between each broadcasting antenna and cellular phone accurately). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mutha and Oshima because it would resolve issues concerning security and complexity of settlement in an increase in the scale of system configuration (Oshima, Paragraph 0029).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutha in view of Menefee, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Helms et al. (US 20210304169 A1 and Helms hereinafter).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Mutha and Menefee teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as described above.
The combination of Mutha and Menefee does not explicitly teach wherein payment device is an ultra-wide band tag or a smart device equipped with an ultra-wide band antenna. In an analogous art, Helms teaches wherein payment device is an ultra-wide band tag or a smart device equipped with an ultra-wide band antenna (Paragraphs 0007 and 0040; patron and patron identification advertising signal encompassing any repeatedly broadcast radio signal that can be detected as specifically indicating presence of its emitter in a relevant finite area and uniquely identifying the emitter. A repeatedly broadcast Bluetooth beacon can qualify as a P/PAS. An Ultra-wideband (also known as UWB) radio transmission can be used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mutha and Helms because there is a growing demand for customer-centric and timely processing with respect to goods and/or services provided at the premises, and it would provide goods and services in timely and high quality manner (Helms, Paragraph 0002).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baldwin et al. (US 20130144731 A1) discloses using a remote scanner for mobile transactions, and a point of sale (POS) terminal communicates with a remote scanner that is removably coupled to the POS terminal.
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 Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights