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 the Claims
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 12/19/2025 amending claims 1, 5-8, and 13-15. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objection to claim 15, the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-15, and the previous grounds of § 102 rejection of claims 1-15 in the instant Office action. Examiner has, however, established new objections to claims 1, 8, and 15; new § 101 rejection for claims 1-15; and new grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 1-15 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection and the new grounds of § 103 rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant rejection of claims 1-15 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon Application No. 113119201 filed in Republic of China (TW) on May 23, 2024. The receipt of the certified copy of this foreign application on October 25, 2024, is acknowledged. The priority claim to the foreign priority document in question was timely made in the application data sheet filed October 17, 2024.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101
Applicant argues in page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks:
The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to specific improvements in computer capabilities or network functionality are patent eligible. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the invention solves the technical problem of application fragmentation, where a user typically needs to install multiple specific applications to interpret different proprietary codes. The claimed invention provides a specific software solution: a universal application system that acts as a local interpreter, capable of identifying "non-agreed" codes and dynamically reconfiguring the User Interface to provide a functional pathway (the financial transaction trigger link) where one would otherwise not exist. This improves the efficiency and functionality of the mobile device itself.
Moreover, even if the claims were viewed as involving an abstract idea, they include inventive concepts that amount to significantly more than the idea itself. The claims do not merely implement a business practice on a generic computer.
The Federal Circuit in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) held that claims directed to an improved user interface for computing devices were patent eligible because they improved the efficiency of using the electronic device. Similarly, the present invention improves the efficiency of the mobile device. The claimed "providing and displaying" of a context-specific interface based on an internal classification of code types is a specific technical tool. It avoids the need for the user to launch different applications or for the device to store multiple heavy applications, thereby improving the man-machine interface and resource allocation of the device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, the Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Enfish: “In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on specific improvement–a particular database technique–in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d 1335-36 …The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” (8). This is similar to instant claims 1-15 which focus on using computer as a tool instead of improving computer as a tool. Thus, instant claims 1-15 are not patent eligible under § 101 in view of Enfish.
Second, the Federal Circuit Court, in Core Wireless, found the claims patent eligible under § 101 because they reduced the steps required to display a limited set of information to the user and, therefore, improving the process by increasing the efficiency of mobile device. This is dissimilar to the instant claims because claims 1-15 do not reduce the steps of a process and, therefore, do not increase the efficiency of a device. Thus, the instant claims 1-15 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of Core Wireless.
Prior Art under § 102
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments directed to the previous grounds of § 102 rejection but finds them moot in view of new grounds of § 103 rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1 and 8.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
. . . in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link to enable a mobile payment without using another payment application;
wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment;
wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to the other payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application.
Wherein-clauses are not free-standing limitations, but instead provide further clarification for a free-standing limitation. Applicant could amend claim 1 to recite:
. . . in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link to enable a mobile payment without using another payment application,[[;]] wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment,[[;]] and wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to the other payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
. . . an electronic mobile device assigned to a second transaction party and installed with a universal payment application configured to retrieve the mobile payment code, wherein the universal payment application is configured to identify whether the retrieved mobile payment code is a recognizable payment code or a non-agreed payment code, wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment, wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to another payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, the universal payment application provides and displays a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link to enable a mobile payment without using the other payment application.
There should be “and wherein” before “the universal payment application, and there should be definite article “the” in front of “payment application” instead of indefinite article “a.” Applicant could amend claim 8 to recite:
. . . an electronic mobile device assigned to a second transaction party and installed with a universal payment application configured to retrieve the mobile payment code, wherein the universal payment application is configured to identify whether the retrieved mobile payment code is a recognizable payment code or a non-agreed payment code, wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment, wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to another payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, and wherein the universal payment application provides and displays a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link to enable [[a]] the mobile payment without using the other payment application.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality:
. . . when the universal payment link is selected, the electronic mobile device performs a mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application;
There should be definite article “the” in front of “payment application” instead of indefinite article “a.” Applicant could amend claim 15 to recite:
. . . when the universal payment link is selected, the electronic mobile device performs [[a]] the mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application;
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-7 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 8-15 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-15 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-15, however, recite an abstract idea of mobile payment. The creation of mobile payment, as recited in the independent claims 1 and 8 belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1 and 8, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“starting a universal payment application” (claim 1);
“identifying whether the retrieved mobile payment code is a recognizable payment code or a non-agreed payment code” (claim 1);
“in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link to enable a mobile payment without using another payment application, wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment, and wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to the other payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application” (claim 1);
“assigning a mobile payment code to a first transaction party” (claim 8);
“identify[ing] whether the retrieved mobile payment code is a recognizable payment code or a non-agreed payment code, wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment, [and] wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to another payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code” (claim 8); and
“providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link to enable a mobile payment without using the other payment application” (claim 8).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1 and 8 recite additional elements:
“a universal payment application” (claim 1);
“an electronic mobile device” (claim 1); and
“an electronic mobile device assigned to a second transaction party and installed with a universal payment application” (claim 8).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“retrieving a mobile payment code” (claim 1); and
“retrieving the mobile payment code” (claim 8).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 8 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1 and 8 (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[0051] For example, the electronic mobile device 30 can be, for example but not limited to, the consumer's mobile phone or a smart watch, which at least includes an image capture module 31 and a display module 32. In this case, the image capture module 31 may be, for example, a camera module of the mobile phone, which can retrieve the mobile payment code 20 by using the image capturing method. It should be noted that the above description is only an example and is not intended to limit the present disclosure. In another embodiment, the electronic mobile device 30 may include a wireless communication module, such as a near-field communication (NFC) module. In this case, the electronic mobile device 30 may utilize a wireless communication method (e.g. near-field communication) to retrieve the mobile payment code 20.
[0052] In addition, the display module 32 can be, for example, a display module of a mobile phone, such as an LCD display module, an OLED display module, etc. In this case, the display module 32 can be used to display the payment interface 33 provided by the universal payment application based on the captured mobile payment code 20. To be noted, the above description is only an example and is not intended to limit the present disclosure.
This is a description of general-purpose computing device. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claims 1 and 8 are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “retrieving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “retrieving” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 “retrieve” information over a network in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/ limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 8 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-7 depend on independent claim 1; and dependent claims 9-15 depend on independent claim 8. The elements in dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the mobile payment code is a bar code or a QR code” (claims 2 and 9: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the step of retrieving the mobile payment code is to retrieve the mobile payment code by an image capturing method or by a wireless communication method” (claim 3: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the financial transaction trigger link corresponds to a credit card transaction, a debit card transaction, a prepaid card transaction, a bank transfer transaction, or a prepaid account transaction” (claims 4 and 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“when the universal payment link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application; and when the financial transaction trigger link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform or through a financial transaction platform corresponding to the financial transaction trigger link” (claims 5 and 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the recognizable payment code is a universal payment code or an agreed payment code; when the recognizable payment code is the universal payment code, the payment interface at least comprises the universal payment link; and when the recognizable mobile payment code is the agreed payment code, the payment interface at least comprises the universal payment link and/or an agreed payment trigger link” (claims 6 and 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“when the universal payment link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application; when the agreed payment trigger link is selected, activating the agreed payment application corresponding to the agreed payment code to perform the mobile payment, or performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform; and when the financial transaction trigger link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform or through a financial transaction platform corresponding to the financial transaction trigger link” (claims 7 and 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the electronic mobile device comprises an image capture module for retrieving the mobile payment code by an image capturing method” (claim 10: additional element/ limitation); and
“the electronic mobile device comprises a wireless communication module for retrieving the mobile payment code by a wireless communication method” (claim 11: additional element/limitation).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 8 and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani (US 2015/0058145 A1) in view of D’Alisa (WO 2016/089993 A1).
As to independent claim 1
Luciani shows:
starting a universal payment application on an electronic mobile device (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2);
retrieving a mobile payment code by the electronic mobile device (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2);
identifying, by the universal payment application, whether the retrieved mobile payment code is a recognizable payment code or a non-agreed payment code (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and
in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, enable a mobile payment without using another payment application, wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment, and wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to the other payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
Luciani does not show:
providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link.
D’Alisa shows:
providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link (D’Alisa: page 12, ¶ 36).
Motivation to combine Luciani and D’Alisa:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Luciani by providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link of D’Alisa in order to process a payment in an electronic commerce environment (D’Alisa: page 2, ¶ 6).
As to claim 2: Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 1. Luciani also shows that the mobile payment code is a bar code or a QR code (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 31).
As to claim 3: Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 1. Luciani also shows that the step of retrieving the mobile payment code is to retrieve the mobile payment code by an image capturing method or by a wireless communication method (Luciani: page 2, ¶ 21; and page 3, ¶ 31).
As to claim 4: Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 1. Luciani also shows that the financial transaction trigger link corresponds to a credit card transaction, a debit card transaction, a prepaid card transaction, a bank transfer transaction, or a prepaid account transaction (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30).
As to claim 5: Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 1. Luciani also shows that when the universal payment link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and when the financial transaction trigger link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform or through a financial transaction platform corresponding to the financial transaction trigger link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
As to claim 6: Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 1. Luciani also shows that the recognizable payment code is a universal payment code or an agreed payment code (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); when the recognizable payment code is the universal payment code, the payment interface at least comprises the universal payment link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and when the recognizable mobile payment code is the agreed payment code, the payment interface at least comprises the universal payment link and/or an agreed payment trigger link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
As to claim 7: Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 6. Luciani also shows that when the universal payment link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); when the agreed payment trigger link is selected, activating the agreed payment application corresponding to the agreed payment code to perform the mobile payment, or performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and when the financial transaction trigger link is selected, performing the mobile payment through the universal payment platform or through a financial transaction platform corresponding to the financial transaction trigger link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
As to independent claim 8
Luciani shows:
a mobile payment code assigned to a first transaction party (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and
an electronic mobile device assigned to a second transaction party and installed with a universal payment application configured to retrieve the mobile payment code, wherein the universal payment application is configured to identify whether the retrieved mobile payment code is a recognizable payment code or a non-agreed payment code, wherein the recognizable payment code is configured to be recognizable by the universal payment application to perform a mobile payment through a universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application, or to activate an agreed payment application corresponding to the recognizable payment code to perform the mobile payment, wherein the non-agreed payment code is generated corresponding to another payment application and does not correspond to the universal payment application in response to identifying the mobile payment code as the non-agreed payment code, and wherein the universal payment application is enabling a mobile payment without using the other payment application (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
Luciani does not show:
providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link.
D’Alisa shows:
providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link (D’Alisa: page 12, ¶ 36).
Motivation to combine Luciani and D’Alisa:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Luciani by providing and displaying a payment interface comprising at least a financial transaction trigger link and/or a universal payment link of D’Alisa in order to process a payment in an electronic commerce environment (D’Alisa: page 2, ¶ 6).
As to claim 9, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 8. Luciani also shows that the mobile payment code is a bar code or a QR code (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 31).
As to claim 10, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 8. Luciani also shows that the electronic mobile device comprises an image capture module for retrieving the mobile payment code by an image capturing method (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 31).
As to claim 11, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 8. Luciani also shows that the electronic mobile device comprises a wireless communication module for retrieving the mobile payment code by a wireless communication method (Luciani: page 2, ¶ 21).
As to claim 12, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 8. Luciani also shows that the financial transaction trigger link corresponds to a credit card transaction, a debit card transaction, a prepaid card transaction, a bank transfer transaction, or a prepaid account transaction (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30).
As to claim 13, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 8. Luciani also shows that when the universal payment link is selected, the electronic mobile device performs a mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and when the financial transaction trigger link is selected, the electronic mobile device performs the mobile payment through the universal payment platform or through a financial transaction platform corresponding to the financial transaction trigger link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
As to claim 14, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 8. Luciani also shows that the recognizable payment code is a universal payment code or an agreed payment code (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); when the recognizable payment code is the universal payment code, the payment interface at least comprises the universal payment link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and when the recognizable payment code is the agreed payment code, the payment interface at least comprises the universal payment link and/or an agreed payment trigger link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, Luciani in view of D’Alisa shows all the elements of claim 14. Luciani also shows that when the universal payment link is selected, the electronic mobile device performs a mobile payment through the universal payment platform corresponding to the universal payment application (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); when the agreed payment trigger link is selected, the electronic mobile device activates the agreed payment application corresponding to the agreed payment code to perform the mobile payment, or the electronic mobile device performs the mobile payment through the universal payment platform (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2); and when the financial transaction trigger link is selected, the electronic mobile device performs the mobile payment through the universal payment platform or through a financial transaction platform corresponding to the financial transaction trigger link (Luciani: page 3, ¶ 30; and Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan (WO 2020/024052 A1) discloses: “[0092] Figure 7 shows a screenshot of an example interface of an enhanced statement file that includes buttons to trigger payment actions according to some embodiments. The interface displays payment data such as statement balance, minimum payment, due date, payment account, and so on. A button triggers an immediate payment for the account. Another button triggers the generation of a new calendar entry with a token for making the payment. This can be used to delay the financial transaction while still automatically tracking the due date within the electronic calendar. Embodiments use tokenized calendar reminder/payment links to securely trigger the financial transaction for the customer. The token links to data secured at a data store to avoid having all data at the customer device and/or calendar application.”
Ketchpel, Steven P., et al. "UPAI: A universal payment application interface." USENIX 2nd Electronic Commerce workshop. 1996, discloses: “[I]n this paper we pro pose U-PAI, a universal payment application inter face that will enable a programmer to write for one interface, and then interact with any payment mechanism. Each payment mechanism can support the universal API directly, oraproxy or wrapper can be built to translate U-PAI calls to the appropriate native calls supported by the payment mechanisms.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights