DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed March 17, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant has amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been considered, but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0019995 to Ngo et al. (“Ngo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2006/0107335 to Frank et al. (“Frank”), U.S. Publication No. 2022/0147993 to Fazliu et al. (“Fazliu”) , and CN 118798892 to Ye et al. (“Ye”).
As per claim 1, Ngo discloses receiving, by communications hardware, a provisioning request from a user device associated with a provisioning user, wherein the provisioning request (paragraph [0090] & [0092] – enrollment process);
determining, by account management circuitry and based on the provisioning request, an access parameter for a provisioning event associated with a user account associated with the provisioning user, and
generation of a redeemable authentication credential; generating, by the account management circuitry, a rule set for the provisioning event to reflect the access parameter, wherein the rule set allows for redemption from the user account associated with the provisioning user using the redeemable authentication credential; (paragraphs [0047] – limited-use threshold and [0066]) and
providing, by the communications hardware, the redeemable authentication credential to the first user device(paragraph [0067]).
Ngo does not expressly disclose that the request includes an authorized fund amount; providing, by the communications hardware, an acceptance request to a second user device associated with a designated user, wherein the acceptance request comprises the access parameter;
receiving, by the communications hardware, an acceptance response from the second user device, wherein the acceptance response is indicative of whether the designated user accepted the access parameter; and
in response to the designated user accepting the access parameter;
wherein the redeemable credential is shareable with the second user device.
Frank discloses a provisioning request including an authorized fund amount (abstract).
Fazilu and Ye disclose providing, by the communications hardware, an acceptance request to a second user device associated with a designated user, wherein the acceptance request comprises the access parameter;
receiving, by the communications hardware, an acceptance response from the second user device, wherein the acceptance response is indicative of whether the designated user accepted the access parameter; and
in response to the designated user accepting the access parameter generating, by the account management circuitry, a redeemable authentication credential (Ye at Fig. 7 steps 704 and 705; and Fazilu at paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ngo by including the feature of Frank, Ye, and Fazilu. Applying the known technique of Frank, Ye, and Fazilu into Ngo would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
As per claim 3, Ngo discloses receiving, by the communications hardware, a redemption request comprising a candidate redeemable authentication credential from a redemption device; identifying, by authentication circuitry, the provisioning event associated with the candidate redeemable authentication credential;
determining, by the account management circuitry and based on the rule set, a redemption result for the redemption request;
and in response to determining a successful redemption result, authorizing, by the account management circuitry, the redemption request, wherein authorization of the redemption request allows for redemption of the authorized fund amount from the user account by the redemption device (paragraph [0008] -communication device when conducting a transaction using the communication device may include receiving, from a remote computer, a limited-use key (LUK) that is associated with a set of one or more limited-use thresholds that limits usage of the LUK; [0300], and abstract)
The claim recites the conditional /optional language “in response to." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 9, Ngo in view of Frank, Fazliu and Ye disclose the provisioning request comprises an authorized fund amount, wherein the rule set further reflects that (a) the redeemable authentication credential is associated with the authorized fund amount (see claim 1 above; Ngo [0155]). As per the provisioning request comprises an additional authorized fund amount, it would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to perform the steps for an additional authorized fund amount.
Also, wherein the rule set further reflects that (b) the redeemable authentication credential cannot be used to redeem the additional authorized fund amount until a milestone completion notification is received is considered non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made include a set of rules that reflects any type data because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because of the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 10, Ngo in view of Frank, Fazliu and Ye disclose receiving, by the communications hardware, a milestone completion notification from the user device associated with the provisioning user; and in response to receiving the milestone completion notification, updating, by the account management circuitry, the rule set of the provisioning event to reflect that the redeemable authentication credential can be used to redeem the additional authorized fund amount (see claim 9 above; paragraphs [0155], [0204]).
As per claim 11, Ngo discloses the provisioning request comprises one or more of (a) a time limit for which the redeemable authentication credential is valid, (b) an indication of whether the redeemable authentication credential is revocable or irrevocable, (c) one or more authorized redemption locations or redemption devices, and (d) an indication of a designated user (paragraphs [0007] – limited lifespan; [0008] – limited -use key).
As per claim 12, Ngo discloses wherein the redeemable authentication credential is a QR code or a token (paragraph [0008] and claim 32 of Ngo]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1 and 3
Claim 20 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo in view of Frank, Fazliu and Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2025/0202882 to Griffin-Allwood et al. (“Griffin-Allwood”).
As per claim 2, Ngo discloses an authentication process for access provision routine (paragraphs [0076], [0166], and [0227]). The reference does not expressly disclose generating, by authentication circuitry, a passkey challenge for the user device; providing, by the communications hardware, the passkey challenge for the user device; receiving, by the communications hardware, a passkey response comprising a signed passkey challenge from the user device; and authenticating, by the authentication circuitry, the signed passkey challenge, wherein the limited account access provisioning routine is only performed in an instance in which the signed passkey challenge is successfully authenticated.
Griffin-Allwood discloses authenticating using passkey challenge (paragraph [0234]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute authentication method of Ngo in view of Frank, Fazliu and Ye with the passkey challenge method taught by Griffin-Allwood. One would be motivated to do this because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result, which renders the claim obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 2.
Claims 4-7 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo in view of Frank, Ye, and Fazliu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0058906 to Dundigalla et al. (“Dundigalla”).
As per claim 4, Ngo receiving an approval response form the (a) the approval response is indicative of whether the provisioning user authorizes the redemption request and (b) determining the redemption result is based on the approval response (abstract – transaction can be authorized based on the transaction generated from LUK).
Ngo does not expressly disclose in response to receipt of the redemption request, providing, by the communications hardware, an approval request to the user device; and receiving, by the communications hardware, an approval response from the user device.
Dundigalla discloses in response to receipt of the redemption request, providing, by the communications hardware, an approval request to the user device; and receiving, by the communications hardware, an approval response from the user device, wherein (a) the approval response is indicative of whether the provisioning user authorizes the redemption request and (b) determining the redemption result is based on the approval response ( paragraph [0076] –“user interfaces are presented within the mobile application that are configured to allow the user to submit a currency note withdrawal request…interfaces replicate or closely resemble the user interfaces that are presented on the ATM during a conventional ATM interaction..”; it is known in the art that conventional ATM interaction includes redemption request and approval response).
The claim recites the conditional /optional language “in response to." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Dundigalla into the system Ngo in view of Frank, Fazliu and Ye. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claims 5 and 17, Dundigalla discloses transferring, by operation management circuitry, the authorized fund amount to be transferred from the user account associated with the provisioning user to a user account associated with the designated user (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0076]).
As per claims 6 and 18, Dundigalla discloses authorizing, by operation management circuitry, the redemption device to dispense the authorized fund amount (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0076]).
As per claims 7 and 19, Dundigalla discloses wherein the redemption device is an automated teller machine (paragraph [0076]).
Claim 16 and rejected on the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo and Frank, Fazliu and Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0118121 to Narang et al. (“Narang”).
Ngo in view of Frank disclose the method of claim 1. Ngo also disclose receiving, by the communications hardware, a recission request from the user device ([0222] – request to delete an account);
determining, by the account management circuitry, whether the rule set allows for a recission of authorization to transfer the authorized fund amount; in an instance in which the rule set allows for the recission (paragraph [0199]);
updating, by the account management circuitry, the rule set of the provisioning event, wherein the updated rule set does not allow for redemption of the authorized fund amount from the user account using the redeemable authentication credential; and
in an instance in which the rule set does not allow for the recission, maintaining, by the account management circuitry, the rule set of the provisioning event (paragraph [0151] – update the account parameters);
Narang discloses receiving, by the communications hardware, a recission request from the user device (paragraph [0084] – cancelation request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Narang into the system Ngo in view of Frank, Fazliu and Ye. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights