DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the applicant asserted that “claims 1-20 as presently recited satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101”. However, the use of a display interface for the purpose of selecting payment methods is not an improvement to technology. The claim recites an existing technology without providing significantly more. Hence, Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible, and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the applicant asserted that “Rathod and Shrivastava combination does not support a 103 rejection of independent claim 1 as amended for at least the reasons described above [some elements not disclosed by the references]”. However, per reviewing and reconsidering the claim in light of the cited references, the references still disclose the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rathod by indicating the payment methods supported by the business as taught by Shrivastava, because modifying Rathod using elements taught by Shrivastava helps to better identify business with certain payment methods (par. [0114]). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-20 are directed to a system, a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-5 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 10 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A mobile device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: receive digital images that include businesses in an environment; determine supported payment methods by one or more of the businesses; compare digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device to the supported payment methods by the one or more businesses; and display the environment and an overlay of the businesses that support the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device. These limitations are directed to concepts performed in the human mind, via the use of generic computer components, such as Methods of Organizing Human Activity (doing business with businesses that support certain payment methods). Hence, it falls within the “Commercial Interaction” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19, for instance, recites, in part, A system, comprising: a payment method manager configured to: determine, from digital images, businesses in an environment and supported payment methods by one or more of the businesses; compare at least one of: digital banking payment methods available on a mobile device to the supported payment methods by the one or more businesses in the environment; or physical payment methods available with a user of the mobile device to the supported payment methods by the one or more businesses; and a display device to display the environment and an overlay of the one or more of businesses that at least one of support the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device or the physical payment methods available with the user of the mobile device. These limitations are directed to concepts performed in the human mind, via the use of generic computer components, such as Methods of Organizing Human Activity (doing business with businesses that support certain payment methods). Hence, it falls within the “Commercial Interaction” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as computer, a user interface, a machine learning model recited at a high-level of generality (extracting, identifying, presenting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2 and 11 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite comparing physical payment methods and indicating available payment methods when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 3 and 12 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite receiving digital images of the businesses. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 4 and 13 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite displaying businesses. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, a display) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 5 and 14 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite causing to display an environment and augmented reality over businesses. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, a mobile device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 6, 15 and 20 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite causing to display an environment and augmented reality over businesses. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, a display) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 7 and 16 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite receiving a user input. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, a mobile device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 8 and 17 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite indicating proximity of business. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, a mobile device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claim(s) 9 and 18 are grouped together. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite displaying a warning sign for businesses that only use cash payment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a processor, a mobile device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod, (WO 2016/113602 A1) in view of Shrivastava et al. (US 2024/0430092 A1).
Claims 1 and 10 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, is taught: Rathod teaches: A mobile device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Rathod, “. . . . Furthermore, one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed. In particular, the numerous machines shown with embodiments of the invention include processor(s) and various forms of memory for holding data and instructions. Examples of computer-readable mediums include permanent memory storage devices, such as hard drives on personal computers or servers . . .”) and configured to cause the mobile device to: receive digital images that include search for businesses in an environment (Rathod, pg. 6 ln 24-26 “ In an another embodiment identify users including movable or stable or fixed users and/or service providers including movable or stable or fixed service providers who are online and present representations of them (e.g. icon or name or image) on user interface (e.g. map etc.) . . . a computing device can operate an application for enabling to view, search, match, filter, browse, navigate, select one or more prospective users including customers, clients, students, passengers & like and/or on-demand service providers . . .”) the application on computing device can search for on-demand service providers, or business;
determine supported payment methods by one or more of the businesses (Rathod, pg. 8, ln 11-20 “. . . when the user or service provider select or tap the icon representing one or more type of on-demand service provider, system generates and presents contextual user actions menu to user including he/she is interested to travel or catch particular type or particular selected vehicle e.g. particular selected or preferred cab or rickshaw or particular number of bus, provide pickup and drop off information, ask for price or rate or current rate, bid, offer premium price or rate or fare, communicate with them, provide or select one or more types of preferred or accepted payment modes e.g. cash, credit card, net banking, swipe credit card via mobile (e.g. Square), use integrated payment via e.g. Stripe, pay via installments & provide or pay after particular period or duration of credit facility, ask for reference, view profile, ratings & reviews, ask for vehicle or driver or service provider details including type or condition of vehicle, passenger capacity, service provided, accepted payment mode . . .”) The application indicates service provider, or business, that accepts certain payment methods such as digital banking payment;
compare digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device to the supported payment methods by the one or more businesses (Rathod, see at least pg. 25, ln 6-11 “. . . The user or service providers can then view, search, match, sort, filter, communicate, compare, negotiate, book, request for the on-demand service based on the selection. In one example, when the user makes a request, a confirmation user interface feature 121 can be provided by the on-demand service application 110. From this user interface feature, the user can view the details of the request, such as what account or credit card to charge (and can edit or choose a different payment method) . . .”) The user can select based on the feature and select the payment method that is compatible with the digital payment methods on the user device;
Rathod does not disclose the following; however, Shrivastava teaches:
and display the environment (see at least par. [0089] “. . . FIG. 1, UE 221 of FIG. 2, user device 307 of FIG. 3, user device 507 of FIG. 5). As another example, an input device of the user device, such as a virtual keyboard displayed on the user device, may be used to provide input to the infotainment system 454. In some cases, the infotainment system 454 may be capable of authenticating a user of the infotainment system 454. For example, the infotainment system 454 may include an authentication system which may request that a user of the infotainment system 454 to log into the infotainment system 454. As another example, the infotainment system 454 may into a biometric system which may authenticate a user based on a fingerprint, facial recognition, voice, and/or any other physiological characteristic of a person”) A user device with a display can be used to display an environment, and an overlay of the businesses that support the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device (Shrivastava, see at least par. [0114] “. . . For example, the user device 602 (or vehicle 604) may be associated with one or more payment services. A first payment service 620 associated with the user device 602 may provide 622 the user device 602 with a payment token that may be used to process payments with the first payment service 620. Another service, Service A 618, of the service providers 608 may accept payment via the first payment service 620 and may indicate to the anonymous identifier token cloud service 606 that it accepts payments via the first payment service 620. The anonymous identifier token cloud service 606 may indicate to the vehicle 604 and/or the user device 602 that Service A 618 accepts payments via the first payment service 620 . . .”) The service provider indicates on the user device that it accepts certain payment methods [provided on the user device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rathod by indicating the payment methods supported by the business as taught by Shrivastava, because modifying Rathod using elements taught by Shrivastava helps to better identify business with certain payment methods (par. [0114]). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 19: Rathod teaches: A system, comprising: determine, from digital images, businesses in an environment and supported payment methods by one or more of the businesses (Rathod, pg. 8, ln 11-20 “. . . when the user or service provider select or tap the icon representing one or more type of on-demand service provider, system generates and presents contextual user actions menu to user including he/she is interested to travel or catch particular type or particular selected vehicle e.g. particular selected or preferred cab or rickshaw or particular number of bus, provide pickup and drop off information, ask for price or rate or current rate, bid, offer premium price or rate or fare, communicate with them, provide or select one or more types of preferred or accepted payment modes e.g. cash, credit card, net banking, swipe credit card via mobile (e.g. Square), use integrated payment via e.g. Stripe, pay via installments & provide or pay after particular period or duration of credit facility, ask for reference, view profile, ratings & reviews, ask for vehicle or driver or service provider details including type or condition of vehicle, passenger capacity, service provided, accepted payment mode . . .”) The application indicates service provider, or business, that accepts certain payment methods such as digital banking payment; a payment method manager configured to compare at least one of (Rathod, “. . . . Furthermore, one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed. In particular, the numerous machines shown with embodiments of the invention include processor(s) and various forms of memory for holding data and instructions. Examples of computer-readable mediums include permanent memory storage devices, such as hard drives on personal computers or servers . . .”) digital banking payment methods available on a mobile device to supported payment methods by businesses in an environment (Rathod, WO 2016/113602 A1, pg. 6 ln 24-26 “ . . . a computing device can operate an application for enabling to view, search, match, filter, browse, navigate, select one or more prospective users including customers, clients, students, passengers & like and/or on-demand service providers . . .”) the application on computing device can search for on-demand service providers, or business;
receive indications of supported payment methods by one or more of the businesses (Rathod, pg. 8, ln 11-20 “. . . when the user or service provider select or tap the icon representing one or more type of on-demand service provider, system generates and presents contextual user actions menu to user including he/she is interested to travel or catch particular type or particular selected vehicle e.g. particular selected or preferred cab or rickshaw or particular number of bus, provide pickup and drop off information, ask for price or rate or current rate, bid, offer premium price or rate or fare, communicate with them, provide or select one or more types of preferred or accepted payment modes e.g. cash, credit card, net banking, swipe credit card via mobile (e.g. Square), use integrated payment via e.g. Stripe, pay via installments & provide or pay after particular period or duration of credit facility, ask for reference, view profile, ratings & reviews, ask for vehicle or driver or service provider details including type or condition of vehicle, passenger capacity, service provided, accepted payment mode . . .”) The application indicates service provider, or business, that accepts certain payment methods such as digital banking payment;
or physical payment methods available with a user of the mobile device to the supported payment methods by the businesses (Rathod, see at least pg. 25, ln 6-11 “. . . The user or service providers can then view, search, match, sort, filter, communicate, compare, negotiate, book, request for the on-demand service based on the selection. In one example, when the user makes a request, a confirmation user interface feature 121 can be provided by the on-demand service application 110. From this user interface feature, the user can view the details of the request, such as what account or credit card to charge (and can edit or choose a different payment method) . . .”) The user can select based on the feature and select a physical payment method such as credit card or debit card.
Rathod does not disclose the following; however, Shrivastava teaches:
and a display device to display the environment (see at least par. [0089] “. . . FIG. 1, UE 221 of FIG. 2, user device 307 of FIG. 3, user device 507 of FIG. 5). As another example, an input device of the user device, such as a virtual keyboard displayed on the user device, may be used to provide input to the infotainment system 454. In some cases, the infotainment system 454 may be capable of authenticating a user of the infotainment system 454. For example, the infotainment system 454 may include an authentication system which may request that a user of the infotainment system 454 to log into the infotainment system 454. As another example, the infotainment system 454 may into a biometric system which may authenticate a user based on a fingerprint, facial recognition, voice, and/or any other physiological characteristic of a person”) A user device with a display can be used to display an environment and an overlay of the one or more of the businesses that at least one of support the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device or the physical payment methods available with the user of the mobile device (Shrivastava,, see at least par. [0114] “. . . For example, the user device 602 (or vehicle 604) may be associated with one or more payment services. A first payment service 620 associated with the user device 602 may provide 622 the user device 602 with a payment token that may be used to process payments with the first payment service 620. Another service, Service A 618, of the service providers 608 may accept payment via the first payment service 620 and may indicate to the anonymous identifier token cloud service 606 that it accepts payments via the first payment service 620. The anonymous identifier token cloud service 606 may indicate to the vehicle 604 and/or the user device 602 that Service A 618 accepts payments via the first payment service 620 . . .”) The service provider indicates on the user device that it accepts certain payment methods [provided on the user device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rathod by indicating the payment methods supported by the business as taught by Shrivastava, because modifying Rathod using elements taught by Shrivastava helps to better identify business with certain payment methods (par. [0114]). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 2 and 11 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rathod further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to: compare physical payment methods available with a user of the mobile device to the supported payment methods by the one or more businesses; and indicate the businesses that support the physical payment methods available with the user of the mobile device (Rathod, pg. 8 ln 11-20 “. . . (Rathod, pg. 8, ln 11-20 “. . . when the user or service provider select or tap the icon representing one or more type of on-demand service provider, system generates and presents contextual user actions menu to user including he/she is interested to travel or catch particular type or particular selected vehicle e.g. particular selected or preferred cab or rickshaw or particular number of bus, provide pickup and drop off information, ask for price or rate or current rate, bid, offer premium price or rate or fare, communicate with them, provide or select one or more types of preferred or accepted payment modes e.g. cash, credit card, net banking, swipe credit card via mobile (e.g. Square), use integrated payment via e.g. Stripe, pay via installments & provide . . .”) credit card corresponds to physical payment method.
Claims 3 and 12 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rathod further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to receive digital images of the environment via a camera viewfinder, and search for the businesses in the digital images (Rathod, pg. 9 ln 21-25, “In an important embodiment or broader embodiment identify users and/or service providers or current or updated location of users and/or service providers who are online and present representations of them (e.g. icon or name or image) on user interface (e.g. map etc.) and enabling user(s) or service provider(s) to view, search, match, navigate, browse, filter & select online, available or available within particular duration or date & time and nearest to their current or matched or selected or navigated location specific user(s) and/or service provider(s) or updated user(s) and/or service provider(s) . . .”) .
Claims 4 and 13 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rathod further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display the businesses provide at least one of goods or services for purchase using one or more of the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device (Rathod, pg. 8 “. . . as an example, a user can view, search, match, select, compare, negotiate, ask for more details or communicate one on-demand services and service providers (e.g., cab, rickshaw, bus service, food delivery, deliver, food & grocery, supply chain & logistics, home services, and various forms of travel, plumber, electrician, mechanic, maid, cleaner, package delivery, local meals, business services, health services, On demand rooms, freelancers, lawyers, tutor, doctors, support, courier, laundry, flower delivery, repair, car wash, ice creams, carpenter, tailor, & provide a product) using the system, and a service provider can communicate with the system and/or the user to search, match, select, indicate interest, like, confirm, ask details, negotiate, compare to perform the service. In addition, as described herein, "customer devices" and "provider devices" refer to computing devices that can correspond to desktop computers, cellular or smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, tablet devices, television (IP Television), etc., that can provide network connectivity and processing resources for enabling a user to communicate with a system over a network . . .” & ln 11-20 ) the business is displayed on the user device.
Claims 5 and 14 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rathod further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display the environment and augmented reality over the environment of the businesses that support the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device (Rathod, pg. 10 ln 9-18 “In an another embodiment enabling real-time presenting, listing, updating, searching, matching, filtering on-demand services, service providers & consumers or users and facilitating in providing & consuming on-demand services comprising: identify and update current location of consumers or users who are online or interested in consuming on-demand services; identify and update current location of on-demand service providers who are online and available or available within/at particular duration; present said consumers or users and on-demand service providers on interface including map interface; enable to identify or present or indicate on map updated location, distance & approximate or estimated time to arrive or reach between on-demand prospective or actual consumers or users and services or service providers and any combination thereof”) augmented reality corresponds to how the user can interface with the service provider on the user device.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 5. Rathod teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display the environment and augmented reality overlay of the businesses that do not support the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device (Rathod, “. . . In another embodiment service provider can set various status including online i.e. service provider is available for service consumers or customers or passengers or users, offline i.e. service provider is not available or occupied . . .”) offline service provider corresponds to service provider not available and payment method does not apply.
Claims 7 and 16 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Rathod further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to receive an input of a designated digital banking payment method (Rathod, pg. 8 ln 11-20 “. . . (Rathod, pg. 8, ln 11-20 “. . . when the user or service provider select or tap the icon representing one or more type of on-demand service provider, system generates and presents contextual user actions menu to user including he/she is interested to travel or catch particular type or particular selected vehicle e.g. particular selected or preferred cab or rickshaw or particular number of bus, provide pickup and drop off information, ask for price or rate or current rate, bid, offer premium price or rate or fare, communicate with them, provide or select one or more types of preferred or accepted payment modes e.g. cash, credit card, net banking, swipe credit card via mobile (e.g. Square), use integrated payment via e.g. Stripe, pay via installments & provide . . .”) the mobile device receives input such as a selection of a payment method.
Claims 8 and 17 are grouped together. Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 7. Rathod further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to display the environment and augmented reality over the environment of the businesses that support the designated digital banking payment method (Rathod, pg. 8, ln 11-20 “. . . when the user or service provider select or tap the icon representing one or more type of on-demand service provider, system generates and presents contextual user actions menu to user including he/she is interested to travel or catch particular type or particular selected vehicle e.g. particular selected or preferred cab or rickshaw or particular number of bus, provide pickup and drop off information, ask for price or rate or current rate, bid, offer premium price or rate or fare, communicate with them, provide or select one or more types of preferred or accepted payment modes e.g. cash, credit card, net banking, swipe credit card via mobile (e.g. Square), use integrated payment via e.g. Stripe, pay via installments & provide or pay after particular period or duration of credit facility, ask for reference, view profile, ratings & reviews, ask for vehicle or driver or service provider details including type or condition of vehicle, passenger capacity, service provided, accepted payment mode . . .”) the selected service provider is designed to accept certain payment methods.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod, (WO 2016/113602 A1) in view of Shrivastava et al. (US 2024/0430092 A1) in further view of Kalaboukis (US 11,720,896 B1).
Claims 9 and 18 are grouped together. Claim 9, for instance, is taught: Rathod in view of Shrivastava teaches: The mobile device of claim 1. Kalaboukis teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to output a warning display to indicate proximity of a business that does not support any of the digital banking payment methods available on the mobile device (Kalaboukis, Col. 11 ln 20-40) The user device indicates that the proximate transaction can be performed in physical currency, and thus, no digital payment method would be available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rathod in view of Shrivastava by causing the mobile device to output a display to indicate a business that does not support a banking as taught by Shrivastava, because modifying Rathod in view of using elements taught by Shrivastava helps to better businesses with certain payment methods. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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 W. Anderson, can be reached at (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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights