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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments regarding integrating the judicial exception into a practical application are found persuasive (see pgs. 10-12 of the Remarks filed 06/29/2026). In particular, the use of live mobile and merchant device location data allows for automatic tracking and consolidation of a plurality of transactions based on the location of the customer device. Therefore, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Chen in view of Lakkapragada and further in view of Evans, Applicant submits that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (in particular Evans), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Evans is directed to the same field of endeavor as both Chen and Lakkapragada, namely processing of payment/transaction sessions. Furthermore, paragraph 0010 of Evans provides one of ordinary skill in the art motivation to combine the session-based payment processing discloses by Chen and Lakkapragada with the session-based payment processing of Evans to automatically charge a customer upon exiting a merchant location based on customer device location and improving customer experiences while reducing operating costs.
Applicant further submits that Chen in view of Lakkapragada and further in view of Evans does not disclose comparing location of the customer electronic device to the location of the merchant to determine whether or not to end the session. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0023 of Evans discloses that the mobile device app may use GPS/positioning data to determine location data and paragraph 0031 further discloses such location data is transmitted by the mobile device to the merchant system to determine whether the customer device has left the merchant. Furthermore, paragraphs 0017-0019 disclose that location information can be determined based off beacon device data (e.g. identifiers associated with specific locations such as tables) and signal strength. Therefore, when considered in combination with Chen in view Lakkapragada, Evans discloses the amended limitations and the rejection is maintained.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “certain proximity” in claims 1, 10, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the size of the vicinity “a certain proximity of the location of the merchant” encompasses. This in turn makes it unclear at what point the location of the customer device may be considered within and without the location for the merchant.
Claims 2-8, 11-15, and 18-19 are also rejected due to their dependence on at least claim 1, 10, or 17.
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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190147430 "Chen") in view of Lakkapragada et al. (US 20080162365 "Lakkapragada") and further in view of Evans (US 20160092864 "Evans").
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Chen discloses: A method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, comprising: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a payment instrument from the customer electronic device (Fig. 6, 0020, 0060);
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer (Fig. 6, 0060-0061)...
during the session: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier (Fig. 6, 0061-0064);
aggregating, by the merchant computer program, the transactions that were authorized by the issuer; and submitting, by the merchant computer program, the aggregated transactions to the issuer for payment (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062).
Chen does not disclose: ...providing a session identifier for the session to a customer electronic device;
and authorizing, by the merchant computer program, each of the plurality of transactions with an issuer of the payment instrument.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lakkapragada discloses: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a payment instrument from a customer (Fig. 4-5, 0016-0017, 0025, 0061, 0063);
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer by providing a session identifier for the session to a customer electronic device (Fig. 4-5, 0025, 0042, 0064-0065);
during the session: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier; and authorizing, by the merchant computer program, each of the plurality of transactions with an issuer of the payment instrument (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 10 disclosed by Chen by including providing a session identifier and authorizing each of the plurality of transactions as disclosed by Lakkapragada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow customized aggregation constraints/rules (Lakkapragada 0046).
Chen in view of Lakkapragada does not disclose: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a location of a customer electronic device for a customer and a location for a merchant associated with the merchant computer program;
...wherein the session is associated with a location of the customer electronic device;
during the session and when the location of the customer electronic device is within a certain proximity of the location of the merchant: receiving...;
determining, by the merchant computer program, that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant;
in response to determining that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant: aggregating...; and submitting...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Evans discloses: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a location of a customer electronic device for a customer and a location for a merchant associated with the merchant computer program (Fig. 1-2, 0017-0018, 0023, 0026, 0030);
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer...wherein the session is associated with a location of the customer electronic device; (Fig. 1-2, 0019, 0026, 0030);
during the session and when the location of the customer electronic device is within a certain proximity of the location of the merchant: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer (Fig. 1-2, 0021, 0026)
determining, by the merchant computer program, that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant (Fig. 2, 0023, 0027, 0031-0032);
in response to determining that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant: aggregating, by the merchant computer program, the transactions (“final bill”)...; and submitting, by the merchant computer program, the aggregated transactions...for payment (Fig. 2, 0027, 0031-0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 10 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada by including receiving device location data and ending the session upon leaving the merchant location as disclosed by Evans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to automatically charge a customer upon exiting a merchant location (Evans 0010).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10. Chen further discloses: ...applying, by the merchant computer program, the transaction limit to each transaction before authorizing the transaction with the issuer (Fig. 6, 0061, 0063).
Lakkapragada further discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a transaction limit from the customer (0026-0037).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 13, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans discloses all limitations of claims 3 and 12. Lakkapragada further discloses: wherein the transaction limit is a maximum number of transactions during the session, a maximum dollar amount for each transaction during the session, or a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (0026-0037).
Chen further discloses: wherein the transaction limit is a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (0061-0064).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10. Lakkapragada further discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a session duration from the customer, and ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (0026-0038).
Chen further discloses: ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (Fig. 6, 0062).
Claims 2, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tetali et al. (US 20180293579 "Tetali").
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans does not disclose: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a customer PIN with the payment instrument;
wherein the merchant computer program authorizes one of the transactions with the issuer of the payment instrument using the customer PIN.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetali discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a customer PIN with the payment instrument (0018, 0023, 0046, 0048);
wherein the merchant computer program authorizes one of the transactions with the issuer of the payment instrument using the customer PIN (0018, 0023, 0046, 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 2 and 11 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans by including authorizing at least one transaction with a customer PIN as disclosed by Tetali. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide different levels of authentication for transactions (Tetali 0018).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans does not disclose: receiving, by the merchant computer program, rules from the issuer;
and applying, by the merchant computer program, the rules to each transaction before authorizing each transaction with the issuer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetali discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, rules from the issuer (0023, 0046, 0048, 0065);
and applying, by the merchant computer program, the rules to each transaction before authorizing each transaction with the issuer (0023, 0062, 0065).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 8 and 15 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans by including receiving and applying transaction rules from an issuer as disclosed by Tetali. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional security/authentication to transactions over certain issuer-set limits (Tetali 0065).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190147430 "Chen") in view of Lakkapragada et al. (US 20080162365 "Lakkapragada"), Evans (US 20160092864 "Evans") and Tetali et al. (US 20180293579 "Tetali").
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses: A system, comprising: a customer electronic device associated with a customer; a merchant system executing a merchant computer program; and an issuer electronic device executing an issuer computer program (Fig. 1, 0025-0026); wherein:
the merchant computer program is configured to receive a payment instrument from the customer electronic device (Fig. 6, 0020, 0060);
the merchant computer program is configured to initiate a session with the customer (Fig. 6, 0060-0061)...
during the session: the merchant computer program is configured to receive a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier (Fig. 6, 0061-0064);
the merchant computer program is configured to apply the rules to each of the plurality of transactions (Fig. 6, 0061, 0063);
the merchant computer program is configured to aggregate the transactions that were authorized by the issuer computer program (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062);
the merchant computer program is configured to submit the aggregated transactions to the issuer computer program for payment (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062);
and the issuer computer program is configured to initiate payment for the aggregated transactions (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062).
Chen does not disclose: ...providing a session identifier for the session to the customer electronic device;
the merchant computer program is configured to authorize each of the plurality of transactions with the issuer computer program in response to the transaction passing the rules;
and the issuer computer program is configured to authorize each of the transactions...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lakkapragada discloses: A system, comprising: a customer electronic device associated with a customer; a merchant system executing a merchant computer program; and an issuer electronic device executing an issuer computer program (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, 0016-0017); wherein:
the merchant computer program is configured to receive a payment instrument from the customer electronic device (Fig. 4-5, 0025, 0061, 0063);
the merchant computer program is configured to initiate a session with the customer by providing a session identifier for the session to the customer electronic device (Fig. 4-5, 0025, 0042, 0064-0065);
during the session: the merchant computer program is configured to receive a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074);
the merchant computer program is configured to authorize each of the plurality of transactions with the issuer computer program in response to the transaction passing the rules (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074);
and the issuer computer program is configured to authorize each of the transactions (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074)...
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 17 disclosed by Chen by including providing a session identifier and authorizing each of the plurality of transactions as disclosed by Lakkapragada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow customized aggregation constraints/rules (Lakkapragada 0046).
Chen in view of Lakkapragada does not disclose: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a location of a customer electronic device for a customer and a location for a merchant associated with the merchant computer program;
wherein the session is associated with a location of the customer electronic device;
during the session and when the location of the customer electronic device is within a certain proximity of the location of the merchant: receiving...;
determining, by the merchant computer program, that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant;
in response to determining that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant: aggregating...; and submitting...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Evans discloses: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a location of a customer electronic device for a customer and a location for a merchant associated with the merchant computer program (Fig. 1-2, 0017-0018, 0023, 0026, 0030);
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer...wherein the session is associated with a location of the customer electronic device (Fig. 1-2, 0019, 0026, 0030);
during the session and when the location of the customer electronic device is within a certain proximity of the location of the merchant: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer (Fig. 1-2, 0021, 0026)...
determining, by the merchant computer program, that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant (Fig. 2, 0023, 0027, 0031-0032);
in response to determining that the location of the customer electronic device is no longer within the certain proximity of the location for the merchant: aggregating, by the merchant computer program, the transactions (“final bill”)...; and submitting, by the merchant computer program, the aggregated transactions...for payment (Fig. 2, 0027, 0031-0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 10 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada by including receiving device location data and ending the session upon leaving the merchant location as disclosed by Evans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to automatically charge a customer upon exiting a merchant location (Evans 0010).
Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans does not disclose: the merchant computer program is configured to receive rules from the issuer computer program;
...return an authorization decision to the merchant computer program.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetali discloses: the merchant computer program is configured to receive rules from the issuer computer program (0023, 0046, 0048, 0065);
and the issuer computer program is configured to authorize each of the transactions and to return an authorization decision to the merchant computer program (0063-0064).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 17 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Evans by including receiving and applying transaction rules from an issuer as disclosed by Tetali. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional security/authentication to transactions over certain issuer-set limits (Tetali 0065).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Lakkapragada, Evans, and Tetali discloses all limitations of claim 17. Chen further discloses: ...apply the transaction limit to each transaction before authorizing the transaction with the issuer computer program; wherein the transaction limit is...a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (Fig. 6, 0061-0064).
Lakkapragada further discloses: receive a transaction limit from the customer...wherein the transaction limit is a maximum number of transactions during the session, a maximum dollar amount for each transaction during the session, or a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (0026-0037).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Lakkapragada, Evans, and Tetali discloses all limitations of claim 17. Chen further discloses: ...ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (Fig. 6, 0062).
Lakkapragada further discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a session duration from the customer, and ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (0026-0038).
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 TAYLOR RAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571)-272-6708. 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights