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 Claims
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/24 and 8/11/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 11, and 21, the term “a first device” is vague. One person of ordinary skill in the art might not come to the same conclusion as a second person of ordinary skill in the art as to what constitutes “a first device”, especially when considered along with “a second device” mentioned in dependent claim 6. Note that “a first device” is not defined by the specification. Paragraph 6 of the specification identifies several devices such as user’s device, POS terminal, digital server, digital wallet system. It is not clear what the “first device” is referring to. Without knowing the “first device” identity, it is impossible to determine what the steps are – e.g., is it the user device that is sending the information or the vendor’s POS terminal? This is further aggravated by the disclosure that this “first device” is both requesting payment (usually done by the vendor) and sending the digital wallet profile identifier (usually done by the customer’s device). See claim 1.
Also in claims 1, 11, and 21, the “second set of characteristics” not defined. While there is a comparison step (comparing/matching first and second sets of characteristics), there is no way of knowing who is providing the particular sets of characteristics. The applicant is urged to make clear what the boundaries of the claims are. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting it as just another transaction information (such as price, location, etc.) coming from the same source.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected based claim.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 1 and product claim 21. Claim 1 recites the limitations of customized digital wallet with predetermined transaction preferences (e.g., tipping amounts, payment methods, receipt preferences).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving first transaction characteristics (e.g., information) of the digital wallet; receiving first set of preferences (predetermined for the digital wallet); receiving payment request from a first device; payment request includes digital wallet profile identifier and second characteristics (e.g., second information); digital wallet identifier shows digital wallet profile; determining the transaction type by matching first and second characteristic; and transmitting payment confirmation, – specifically, the claim recites:
“receiving a first set of characteristics corresponding to a first transaction type for a digital wallet profile; receiving a first set of preferences corresponding to the first transaction type for the digital wallet profile; storing the first set of characteristics and the first set of preferences corresponding to the first transaction type; receiving a payment request… wherein: the payment request is associated with a purchase; and the payment request comprises a digital wallet profile identifier and a second set of characteristics; identifying the digital wallet profile using the digital wallet profile identifier; determining that the purchase associated with the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type based, at least in part, on one or more of the second set of characteristics matching the first set of characteristics; and transmitting a payment confirmation, wherein the payment confirmation comprises: payment information; and at least one preference of the first set of preferences”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “an apparatus”, “control circuitry”, “at least one memory”, “computer program code”, and “a first device”, in claim 11; and the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 21, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 11 and 21 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as an apparatus, control circuitry, and a first device; a storage unit such as at least one memory and a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and software module and algorithm such as computer program code. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 21 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 21 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of wherein the payment information includes a credit card identifier, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first transaction type corresponds to a business expense; and transmitting information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the business expense, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of the at least one preference corresponds to a tipping percentage; and transmitting the payment confirmation causes the first device to add a tip corresponding to the tipping percentage to the purchase, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of comprising receiving a digital receipt from the first device based, at least in part, on a digital receipt preference, and wherein the at least one preference corresponds to the digital receipt preference, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the first device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of comprising transmitting a notification to a second device based, at least in part on associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the notification requests confirmation that the purchase corresponds to the first transaction type, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a second device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of comprising receiving, from the second device, a confirmation that the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type, and wherein transmitting information associated with the purchase is based, at least in part, on receiving the confirmation that the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type from the second device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the second device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first trans
PNG
media_image1.png
2
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
action type corresponds to a personal expense; and storing information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the personal expense, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of wherein the first set of characteristics comprise a time frame and the second set of characteristics comprise a time within the time frame, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of wherein the first set of characteristics comprise a location and the second set of characteristics comprise the location, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of wherein the payment information includes a credit card identifier, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of associate the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first transaction type corresponds to a business expense; and transmit information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the business expense, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of the at least one preference corresponds to a tipping percentage; and the apparatus being caused to transmit the payment confirmation causes the first device to add a tip corresponding to the tipping percentage to the purchase, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of the apparatus is further caused to receive a digital receipt from the first device based, at least in part, on a digital receipt preference, and wherein the at least one preference corresponds to the digital receipt preference, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the apparatus” and “the first device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of the apparatus is further caused to transmit a notification to a second device based, at least in part on associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the notification requests confirmation that the purchase corresponds to the first transaction type, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the apparatus” and “a second device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of the apparatus is further caused to receive, from the second device, a confirmation that the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type, and wherein the apparatus is caused to transmit information associated with the purchase based, at least in part, on receiving the confirmation that the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type from the second device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the apparatus” and “the second device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of the apparatus is further caused to: associate the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first transaction type corresponds to a personal expense; and store information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the personal expense, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of wherein the first set of characteristics comprise a time frame and the second set of characteristics comprise a time within the time frame, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-19 and 21 are not patent-eligible.
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 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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolau (10713641) in view of Aabye (20150120472).
Regarding claim 1, Nicolau discloses
a method comprising: receiving a first set of characteristics corresponding to a first transaction type for [a digital wallet] profile;
(“C11, L19-41 (71) the present invention may detect that a customer has received a service in various ways, including geolocation, confirmation of services rendered from a service provider, time limit or timing (e.g., end of services rendered)… the service provider may indicate that service has been rendered thereby prompting a tip notification. In addition, a customer may be prompted based on timing or time period… As shown in FIG. 11, a customer be notified of services rendered by a personal message at 1110. The customer may engage the mobile app to provide a tip, as shown by 1112”).
(“C12, L39-50 (82) Although the foregoing description has focused primarily on a financial institution assembling relevant data sets, processing the data, and sending the relevant data at appropriate times to its customer”).
receiving a first set of preferences corresponding to the first transaction type for the digital wallet profile;
storing the first set of characteristics and the first set of preferences corresponding to the first transaction type; receiving a payment request from a first device, wherein: the payment request is associated with a purchase; and
(“C11, L19-41 (71) After a customer receives service, the customer may be prompted to provide a tip… a valet at a theater may prompt a customer for a tip after a time period from when a show is over (e.g., 30 minutes after a show has ended and the customer has likely received his car from a valet). Also, the customer may be detected when the customer's car leaves a geofence around the theater or other indication (e.g., leaving a front gate or exit area, valet driveway, etc.). As shown in FIG. 11, a customer be notified of services rendered by a personal message at 1110”).
the payment request comprises a digital wallet profile identifier and a second set of characteristics;
identifying the digital wallet profile using the digital wallet profile identifier;
determining that the purchase associated with the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type based, at least in part, on one or more of the second set of characteristics matching the first set of characteristics; and
(The examiner notes that the first and second set of characteristics are vague. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b) above. Also, the examiner interprets “the digital wallet profile identifier” as transaction type information (previously identified). As written, the claim elements are addressed by the prior art as follow: “C7, L61-C8-L7 (47) An embodiment of the present invention may also recognize the type of service the customer received and then suggest an appropriate tip amount. The customer may also predetermine a single tip amount or multiple tip amounts, etc. For example, the customer may predefine a tip amount for a particular service”).
(“C11, L43-50 (72) By engaging the mobile app, the customer may leave a tip of a predetermined amount at 1212 or a customized amount at 1210. The tip amount may be predetermined by the customer, customized based on past customer tipping behavior and/or based on the type or price of services rendered. Other ways for determining a tip amount may be implemented”).
transmitting a payment confirmation, wherein the payment confirmation comprises: payment information; and at least one preference of the first set of preferences.
(“C8, L8-13 (48) At step 218, the customer may receive an acknowledgement from the service provider. The customer may receive a “thank you” message from service provider. Also, when the service provider receives and accepts the tip, an automatic acknowledgement may be sent to the customer for confirmation”).
Nicolau does not disclose, however, Aabye teaches
[a digital wallet]
(“[0062] A digital wallet client may be provided as any suitable software that provides front end functionality of the digital wallet to the user. For example, the digital wallet client may be embodied as a digital wallet software application downloadable by a communication device such as the mobile device 110 (which may be a mobile phone). In some instances, the digital wallet client may provide a user interface (such as a series of menus or other elements) that allows the user to manage his digital wallet(s) (i.e. the digital wallet client may enable interaction with the digital wallet server, and thereby the digital wallet database 171). In some embodiments, the digital wallet client may store data in a computer-readable memory for later use, such as user preferences or identifiers associated with funding sources added to the digital wallet. The data may be stored in a secure execution environment 111 associated with the mobile device of the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nicolau to include [a digital wallet] as taught by Aabye to store and process user’s financial information and to reduce the need to enter payment credentials or present a physical card each time a payment transaction is conducted. See paragraph 3 “[0003] Digital wallets are becoming increasingly popular for conducting various types of transactions. A digital wallet can store financial account information or other information associated with a user, for example, information associated with credit cards, debit cards, coupons, rewards, receipts, concert tickets, and the like. A digital wallet may be linked to a user's payment credentials as well as personal information. The wallet data may reside on a communication device such as a user's mobile device or a personal computer, on a server of a wallet provider or other cloud storage, and may be obtained by and transferred to a merchant from a user's communication device. This reduces the need to enter payment credentials or present a physical card each time a payment transaction is conducted.”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
wherein the payment information includes a credit card identifier
(“C5, L59-C6-L5 (35) Payment server 122 enables user or account holder 130 to make payments by interfacing with other servers owned and/or operated by the financial institution 120 and/or other entities. The app server 128 may interface with other servers owned and/or operated by the financial institution. For example, payment server 122 may interface with a credit card server and associated database that stores and processes credit card transactions for credit card holders of the financial institution 120. Payment server 122 may also interface with a rewards program server and associated database that stores and processes rewards information for account holders at the financial institution 120. The foregoing description is merely one example of a configuration for such functions and is not intended to be limiting”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
the at least one preference corresponds to a tipping percentage; and transmitting the payment confirmation causes the first device to add a tip corresponding to the tipping percentage to the purchase
(“C7, L61-C8-L7 (47) At step 216, the customer may customize a tip amount and/or message… invention may also recognize the type of service the customer received and then suggest an appropriate tip amount. The customer may also predetermine a single tip amount or multiple tip amounts, etc. For example, the customer may predefine a tip amount for a particular service. According to another example, the customer may predefine a schedule of tip amounts for corresponding services”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
transmitting a notification to a second device based, at least in part on associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the notification requests confirmation that the purchase corresponds to the first transaction type
(The examiner notes that the first and second devices are vague. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b) above. As written, the claim elements are addressed by the prior art as follow:
(“C9, L51-C10-L4 (59) the tipper may generate a code. At step 414, the service provider may receive and/or scan the code.) and
(“C11, L19-41 (71) confirmation of services rendered from a service provider”).
(“C12, L39-50 (82) Although the foregoing description has focused primarily on a financial institution assembling relevant data sets, processing the data, and sending the relevant data at appropriate times to its customer, the system may be operated and maintained by other types of commercial entities who may configure the system to provide similar advantages to their customers).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
receiving, from the second device, a confirmation that the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type, and wherein transmitting information associated with the purchase is based, at least in part, on receiving the confirmation that the payment request corresponds to the first transaction type from the second device.
(Again, the examiner notes that the first and second devices are vague. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b) above. As written, the claim elements are addressed by the prior art as follow:
(“C9, L51-C10-L4 (59) the tipper may generate a code. At step 414, the service provider may receive and/or scan the code.) and
(“C11, L19-41 (71) confirmation of services rendered from a service provider”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first trans
PNG
media_image1.png
2
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
action type corresponds to a personal expense; and
storing information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the personal expense
(“C11, L19-41 (71) After a customer receives service, the customer may be prompted to provide a tip… a valet at a theater may prompt a customer for a tip after a time period from when a show is over (e.g., 30 minutes after a show has ended and the customer has likely received his car from a valet). Also, the customer may be detected when the customer's car leaves a geofence around the theater or other indication (e.g., leaving a front gate or exit area, valet driveway, etc.). As shown in FIG. 11, a customer be notified of services rendered by a personal message at 1110”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
the first set of characteristics comprise a time frame and the second set of characteristics comprise a time within the time frame
(“C11, L19-41 (71) confirmation of services rendered from a service provider, time limit or timing (e.g., end of services rendered) … In addition, a customer may be prompted based on timing or time period. In this scenario, a valet at a theater may prompt a customer for a tip after a time period from when a show is over (e.g., 30 minutes after a show has ended and the customer has likely received his car from a valet)”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nicolau further discloses
the first set of characteristics comprise a location and the second set of characteristics comprise the location.
(“C11, L19-41 (71) An embodiment of the present invention may detect that a customer has received a service in various ways, including geolocation, confirmation of services rendered from a service provider, time limit or timing (e.g., end of services rendered), etc. The customer may be detected as leaving a geofence or other location around a service provider”).
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 21 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolau in view of Aabye,
further in view of and Zheng (2014019542).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Nicolau and Aabye do not disclose but Zheng does teaches
However, Zheng teaches
associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first transaction type corresponds to a business expense; and transmitting information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the business expense
([0002] The present invention is generally related to digital wallet technology.)
(“[0036] In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, a user has setup folders and subfolders for business expenses, business travel and tax deductions (e.g., health expenses and charitable deductions). A user interface is provided for a user to organize digital receipts into categories and folders in a digital receipt repository. The actual storage of the digital receipts in the repository may be performed in a database associated with the server 240. Alternately, the storage of the digital receipts may be performed at other storage locations. For example, a consumer may desire that the storage (or a subset thereof) also be mirrored or provided on another location or service”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Nicolau and Aabye to include associating the purchase with the first transaction type, wherein the first transaction type corresponds to a business expense; and transmitting information associated with the purchase, wherein the information associated with the purchases comprises: a cost of the purchase; and an indication that the purchase corresponds to the business expense as taught by Zheng to classify certain expense to efficiently manage reimbursements and business tax deductibility. See “[0039] Interfaces may be provided to download organized receipts or otherwise provide copies of one or more folders or subfolders. For example, folders of receipts may be downloaded to the user's computer, imported into other applications or programs, or selected folders provided to necessary parties. This facilitates actions such as requesting reimbursements for business expenses, preparing tax returns, and using a financial program to monitor monthly and yearly expenses for budgeting purposes.”
Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolau in view of Aabye, further in view of and Nelms (20190197529).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nicolau and Aabye, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Nicolau and Aabye do not disclose but Nelms does teaches
However, Nelms teaches
receiving a digital receipt from the first device based, at least in part, on a digital receipt preference, and wherein the at least one preference corresponds to the digital receipt preference
(“[0013] an exemplary method of digital wallet management is provided”).
(“[0061] Upon completing the first transaction, the POS system 104 can print or issue a receipt (e.g., via a printer 122) or a digital receipt (e.g., view e-mail, sms message, via an web account). In some embodiments, the POS system 104 can output a physical, printed receipt for the user after the first transaction. In some embodiments, the POS system 104 can output an electronic/digital receipt (e.g., e-mailed to the user's e-mail address)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Nicolau and Aabye to include receiving a digital receipt from the first device based, at least in part, on a digital receipt preference, and wherein the at least one preference corresponds to the digital receipt preference as taught by Nelms to facilitate transaction payment by applying prior transaction as precedent of individual preference to the digital wallet payment system. See “[0003] Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure provide a system for digital wallet management that facilitates addition of payment methods to a digital wallet (e.g., an electronic and/or mobile wallet) based on prior use of the payment methods apart from the digital wallet. During checkout by the customer with a payment method, the system captures and securely collects the payment account information associated with the transaction. The physical or electronic receipt for the transaction can include a unique machine-readable element associated with the transaction… The system can retrieve the payment account information based on the transaction record to substantially automatically populate the payment account information into the digital wallet of the customer… The exemplary system therefore provides a convenient and effective manner in populating and managing a digital wallet, simplifying the user interface and minimizing the data entry required to add payment account information to the digital wallet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Levchin (20140250003) teaches establishing an account limit for a digital wallet account.
Hogan (20150127394) teaches method and system for express digital payments in restaurants.
Sharan (20170193515) teaches method for determining if a current wallet-based transaction initiated by a digital wallet user is fraudulent.
Robeen (20180068314) teaches systems and methods for providing notification services using a digital wallet platform.
Gurunathan (20190362339) teaches methods and systems for facilitating payment transaction using a preferred digital wallet application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693