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
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-35 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 21-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 1, 8, 15 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POMEROY et al (CA 2912066 C) in view of RALEIGH et al (USPN 12,707,242).
Per claim 1, POMEROY et al teach a method comprising:
scanning, by a user equipment (UE), a first scannable code displayed at a retail facility, the first scannable code including an internet protocol (IP) address of a verification website operated by a cellular service provider (paras 0028, 0048, 0050, 0052, 0060, 0064, 0109, 0176, 0193, 0196, 0199-201—scanning a bar code by a user device at a retailer merchant kiosk point of sale terminal, transaction information comprises IP address and authorization validator for verification, the kiosk mirrors transactions through an electronic wallet management website);
transmitting, by the UE, a message to the IP address of the verification website, the message including an IP address assigned to an integrated circuit card ID (ICCID) or subscriber identity module (SIM) of the UE by the cellular service provider, wherein reception of the message prompts a verification website to compare the IP address carried by the message to a SIM (paras 0048-50, 0052-54, 0064—transmission message including authentication token associated with user’s mobile device containing SIM card, digital signature, serial number, MAC address, etc. for comparison with user’s associated electronic wallet; paras 0176-177—a scannable bar code linked to the electronic value token, database or lookup table for accessing wallet identifications); and
receiving, by the UE, a second scannable code from the verification website in response to the message (paras 0181-182—the electronic value token transaction computer communicates with the database and/or the issuer’s authorization system to compare one or more of the card ID, the terminal ID, vender ID, etc.; paras 0077-79, 0082—receiving a scannable code for verification by the authorization unit and determining that corresponding code identifies the card issuer for verification);
displaying, by the UE, the second scannable code to a terminal in the retail facility in response to receiving the second scannable code from the verification website, wherein displaying the second scannable code to the terminal prompts the terminal to display a verification success message indicating that the identity o the UE has been verified on-site at the retail facility (paras 0077-79, 0082, 0126, 0176, 0191-192, 0208, 0214-216, 0317—receiving a scannable code for verification by the authorization unit and determining that corresponding code identifies the card issuer for verification, providing the Safe Code to confirm the requested transaction); and
performing a user account change on a user account associated with the UE in response to the terminal displaying the verification success message (paras 0108-109-111, 0200-203, 0211, 0302—user device accessing its SAFE account using a Safe Code associated with the user’s Device ID IP address and authorization validator, user attempt to access SAFE account sending message to validate user access and request).
POMEROY et al teach the limitations, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the limitations “a SIM address list of the cellular service provider to verify an identity of the UE”. However, RALEIGH et al teach maintenance and association of device identifier, SIM identifier and IP address to verify user device identity (col.51 lines 28-col.52 lines 8, col.75 line 41-col.76 line 11, col.86 line 35-col.87 line 50, col.88 lines 17-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al to allow for provisioning SIMs associated with IP addresses and identifications of the user mobile device, which is well-known in the art for instantiating SIMs that are associated with the IP address and other identifying information of mobile device.
Claims 8 and 15 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 21, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 15, POMEROY et al further teach wherein the first scannable code is a QR code (paras 0176, 0188—QR code).
Claim 29 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 21 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 22, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 21, POMEROY et al further teach wherein the second scannable code is a QR code (paras 0189-190, 0216—QR code).
Claim 30 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 22 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 23, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 21, POMEROY et al further teach wherein the second scannable code is a two dimensional (2D) bar code (paras 0048, 0050, 0052—barcode).
Claim 31 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 23 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Claim 28 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claims 21-23 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 24, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 15, POMEROY et al further teach wherein the programming instructions further cause the system to perform the following operations: receiving, by the UE, an interaction ID from the verification website, the interaction ID being generated by the verification website in response to verifying the identity of the UE; embedding, by the UE, the interaction ID into the second scannable code prior to displaying the second scannable code to the terminal (paras 0031-36, 0094, 0146—electronic value token used in tracking transactions provided by merchants, vendors, issuers/providers; user token and client ref ID for verifying user device ID and associated with the scannable code).
Claim 32 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 24 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 25, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 24, POMEROY et al further teach wherein the terminal determines that an interactive session remains active or has otherwise not yet expired based on the interaction ID embedded within the second scannable code displayed by the UE (paras 0028, 0043, 0088, 0139—determining activity time left based on token expiration date associated with user device ID and scannable code).
Claim 33 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 25 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 26, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 15, POMEROY et al further teach wherein an interaction ID is embedded into the second scannable code by the verification website prior to the UE receiving the second scannable code from the verification website (para 0028, 0064—verification code associated with website; paras 0176, 0193, 0197-200—the kiosk mirror transactions available through an electronic wallet management website).
Claim 34 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 26 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 27, POMEROY et al with RALEIGH et al teach the one or more computer storage devices of claim 26, POMEROY et al further teach wherein the terminal determines that an interactive session remains active or has otherwise not yet expired based on the interaction ID embedded within the second scannable code displayed by the UE (paras 0031-36, 0094, 0146—electronic value token used in tracking transactions provided by merchants, vendors, issuers/providers; user token and client ref ID for verifying user device ID and associated with the scannable code; paras 0028, 0043, 0088, 0139—determining activity time left based on token expiration date associated with user device ID and scannable code).
Claim 35 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 27 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
III. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0217527; US 2024/0045639.
IV. 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.
V. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights