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 .
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on January 15, 2025.
Preliminary Amendment – Preliminary amendment to the claims, filed on January 15, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, 14-16, 21, 24, 28, and 30 have been amended; claims 13, 17-20, 22-23, and 25-27 have been canceled.
Claims 1-12, 14-16, 21, 24, and 28-30 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12, 14-16, 21, 24, and 28-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-12, 14-16, 21, 24, and 28-30 recite “A gratuity system as claimed.” The phrasing, “A gratuity system,” should be changed to “The gratuity system,” for more clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
a device in claim 24
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses: “Further alternatively, the unique identifier may be in the form of a device capable of communicating with a mobile computing device of the payer for transferring information and account details of the registered user to the mobile computing device to enable identification of the registered user by the payer's banking institution in order to set up and permit the gratuity payment…. The device may be configured to utilise NFC (Near Field Communication) technology to transfer information. The device may be in the form of an RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) tag, preferably being a passive RFID tag requiring no power source. The device may be in the form of a POS (Point of Sale) device” (see Section of Summary of the Invention in the specification). It is unclear whether the device is hardware/firmware, such as an NFC tag, a tag or a POS device, or an application that can utilize NFC technology to transfer information.
If the applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12, 14-16, 21, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 recites: “A gratuity system including: - a database containing a profile of a registered user which includes: - identification information of the registered user; and details of an account linked to the registered user; and a unique identifier associated with the user profile for allowing identification of the registered user and corresponding account details by a banking institution used by a payer in order to permit a gratuity payment from the payer into the account of the registered user.”
Claim 1 recites a gratuity system including a database containing a profile of a registered user, and a unique identifier associated with the user profile. A database is an organized collection of data or a type of data store based on the use of a database management system (DBMS). The claimed gratuity system does not comprise any hardware components.
Dependent claims 4-12, 14-16, and 21 do not recite any hardware components as part of the claimed gratuity system.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein a registration means is provided for allowing a user to sign up and create a user profile for use with the gratuity system,” and claim 3 recites “wherein the registration means includes a verification means for verifying the identity of a user desirous of registering, wherein the verification means is configured to compare input identification details against those contained on an official database whereupon matching of details typically yields successful verification.” The registration means and the verification means are not positively recited as the components of the claimed gratuity system.
Dependent claims 28-30 recite an incentivizing means. The incentivizing means is not positively recited as a component of the claimed gratuity system.
Therefore, these claims are directed to a computer program/software (often referred to as “software per se”). Therefore, claims 1-12, 14-16, 21, and 28-30 do not fall within any of the four categories of patent-eligible subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites a device capable of communicating with a mobile computing device. The specification does not provide an adequate structure to perform the claimed functions listed above. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “[a] gratuity system as claimed in claim 8 wherein the digital currency is in the form of airtime.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends on claim 8. Claim 8 recites digital currency payments, not a digital currency.
Claim 24 recites a device capable of communicating with a mobile computing device. The specification discloses: “Further alternatively, the unique identifier may be in the form of a device capable of communicating with a mobile computing device of the payer for transferring information and account details of the registered user to the mobile computing device to enable identification of the registered user by the payer's banking institution in order to set up and permit the gratuity payment…. The device may be configured to utilise NFC (Near Field Communication) technology to transfer information. The device may be in the form of an RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) tag, preferably being a passive RFID tag requiring no power source. The device may be in the form of a POS (Point of Sale) device” (see Section of Summary of the Invention in the specification). It is unclear whether the device is hardware/firmware, such as an NFC tag, a tag or a POS device, or an application that can utilize NFC technology to transfer information.
The limitation, which recites a device in claim 24, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, the applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 14-16, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1).
Claim 1:
Veznedaroglu discloses the following:
a gratuity system. (See paragraph [0004], “[t]he system and method for payment of such gratuities provided by the system (or EZ-TIP™) application provides the hotel guest with a means for the unobtrusive, secure and immediate payment of such tips while maintaining anonymity, if desired, for both the customer and recipient”; Fig. 1; and paragraphs [0035]-[0036], “[e]ach potential recipient (or group of recipients) registered with the system application (such as, e.g., the EZ-TIP™ application offered by EZ-Tip LLC of Pennsylvania) will be assigned a unique visual identifier, for example, a Quick Response Code (‘QR Code’) which is the trademark for a type of two-dimensional barcode first designed in 1994 for the automotive industry in Japan…. The customer activates the system application on a smart phone or other suitable device and immediately scan the recipient's associated QR code. Once the QR code is recognized as being associated with a registered system recipient, the customer is presented with a variety of options for deciding or calculating the amount of the gratuity to be given.”)
a database containing a profile of a registered user which includes: - identification information of the registered user; and details of an account linked to the registered user. (See paragraph [0005], “[t]he automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) unique identifier is then parsed by the application, recognized by comparison to existing data in databases…. The recipient's previously saved settings permits the customer's tip to be electronically deposited into the recipient's desired account”; paragraph [0014], “the AIDC unique identifier can be scanned by the optical scanning device of the customer electronic device and saved in a database, enabling the customer electronic device to pay a gratuity to the at least one recipient entity at a later period”; Fig. 1; paragraph [0039], “[o]nce the system 100 confirms, that, for example, the scanned QR code 104 corresponds to a registered recipient 102, by transmitting and receiving confirmation data over an electronic communications network 162 from a processor 118 of the system 100 using data stored in a database 160 or similar storage known in the art (including cloud-based storage and processing)”; paragraph [0045], “[b]ased on the recognition of the unique QR code 504, the system 100 may provide a verification page as shown in FIG. 6B on which is displayed the recipient's 102 photo, name or other designated information or signifying information 648 provided for the purpose of verification”; paragraph [0055], “[t]he registry or database 160 will typically include basic profile information as well as payment, verification, and/or transactional information for facilitating the requested transfer of funds between a customer and one or more gratuity recipients 102”; and paragraphs [0057]-[0058], “[i]n operation, once the user downloads the application 920, the user may choose to register as a customer/tipper, a recipient entity/tippee, or both…. Once the application 920 is created for a unique individual and a unique QR Code 804 is generated and assigned to the individual, the process proceeds enable the user to employ an electronic device 906 to register account(s) 1030 through input into a GUI 922 with active screens 924 to receive (deposit) payments or tips, where each individual can register bank, credit card and/or debit card account(s) on the application 1020 to receive tips, gratuities or other payments using the registered device 1006.”)
a unique identifier associated with the user profile for allowing identification of the registered user and corresponding account details by a banking institution used by a payer in order to permit a gratuity payment from the payer into the account of the registered user. (See paragraph [0005], “[t]he automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) unique identifier is then parsed by the application, recognized by comparison to existing data in databases…. The recipient's previously saved settings permits the customer's tip to be electronically deposited into the recipient's desired account”; Fig. 1; paragraphs [0035]-[0037], “[e]ach potential recipient (or group of recipients) registered with the system application (such as, e.g., the EZ-TIP™ application offered by EZ-Tip LLC of Pennsylvania) will be assigned a unique visual identifier, for example, a Quick Response Code (“QR Code”) which is the trademark for a type of two-dimensional barcode first designed in 1994 for the automotive industry in Japan…. Once the QR code is recognized as being associated with a registered system recipient, the customer is presented with a variety of options for deciding or calculating the amount of the gratuity to be given…. Once the customer has made the necessary verification and/or selections of the amount of the gratuity, approving the gratuity payment initiates payment from a credit card, debit card or bank account controlled by, or associated with, the customer to a debit card or bank account controlled by, or associated with, the recipient(s)”; paragraph [0055]; and paragraph [0058], “[o]nce the application 920 is created for a unique individual and a unique QR Code 804 is generated and assigned to the individual, the process proceeds enable the user to employ an electronic device 906 to register account(s) 1030 through input into a GUI 922 with active screens 924 to receive (deposit) payments or tips, where each individual can register bank, credit card and/or debit card account(s) on the application 1020 to receive tips, gratuities or other payments using the registered device 1006.”)
Claim 2:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein a registration means is provided for allowing a user to sign up and create a user profile for use with the gratuity system. (See paragraphs [0057]-[0058], “[i]n operation, once the user downloads the application 920, the user may choose to register as a customer/tipper, a recipient entity/tippee, or both. Registration includes entering bank, debit and/or credit account(s) information, payment service provider information, or similar credentials for sending and/or receiving payments or tips…. Once the application 920 is created for a unique individual and a unique QR Code 804 is generated and assigned to the individual, the process proceeds enable the user to employ an electronic device 906 to register account(s) 1030 through input into a GUI 922 with active screens 924 to receive (deposit) payments or tips, where each individual can register bank, credit card and/or debit card account(s) on the application 1020 to receive tips, gratuities or other payments using the registered device 1006.”)
Claim 5:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the identification information of the registered user includes any one or more of the group including name, full names, surnames, identification number, passport number, residential address, employer address, e-mail address, phone number, and biometric information. (See paragraph [0036], “[o]nce the QR code is recognized as being associated with a registered system recipient, the customer is presented with a variety of options for deciding or calculating the amount of the gratuity to be given…. The payment screen may also include secondary identifying information to aid the customer in verifying the intended recipient including, for example, the recipient's name ‘Bob,’ an image of the recipient, or other signifying image.”)
Claim 6:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further wherein the account is in the form of a bank account which is in the name of the registered user. (See Figs. 9-10; paragraph [0058], “[o]nce the application 920 is created for a unique individual and a unique QR Code 804 is generated and assigned to the individual, the process proceeds enable the user to employ an electronic device 906 to register account(s) 1030 through input into a GUI 922 with active screens 924 to receive (deposit) payments or tips, where each individual can register bank, credit card and/or debit card account(s) on the application 1020 to receive tips, gratuities or other payments using the registered device 1006.”)
Claim 7:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the bank account is in the name of a digital wallet service provider which provides a digital wallet to registered users. (See paragraph [0058], “[a]n individual registers bank, credit card and/or debit card account on application to receive (deposit) tips or a user can also use a payment service provider such as Apple Pay™ or GooglePay™ in lieu of bank account information.”)
Claim 8:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the account is configured to receive conventional monetary payments or digital currency payments, wherein the type of payment reflects within the digital wallet of the registered user. (See Fig. 6C, paragraph [0046], and paragraph [0058].)
Claim 14:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the registered user is in the form of any one or more of the group of workers including petrol attendants, security guards, car guards, waitrons, hotel staff, domestic staff, gardeners, flight cabin crew, cleaning staff, bartenders, golf caddies, drivers, beauticians, hair dressers, game rangers, domestic workers and busker. (See paragraph [0052]; paragraph [0057], “[t]he application 920 can be created for a group of employees (e.g. car wash team) and/or for an entire business 412. The application 920 can be configured to allocate tips received by individuals, departments, etc. The application 920 is created for a unique individual, department or group of employees and a unique QR Code 804 is generated and assigned to the unique individual, department or group of employees.”)
Claim 15:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses claim 1 wherein the registered user is in the form of a company or charitable or non-profit organisation. (See paragraph [0057].)
Claim 16:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the registered user is in the form of a group-type or representative user which may represent a plurality of associated workers or individuals. (See paragraph [0057].)
Claim 21:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the unique identifier is configured to be readable by a mobile computing device of the payer, wherein the mobile computing device is in the form of any smart device having a camera. (See Fig. 1 and paragraph [0039].)
Claim 24:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the unique identifier is in the form of a device capable of communicating with a mobile computing device of the payer for transferring information and account details of the registered user to the mobile computing device to enable identification of the registered user by the payer's banking institution in order to set up and permit the gratuity payment. (See paragraph [0035], “[t]he required data, in this application a unique identifier for each recipient(s), is extracted from patterns that are present in both horizontal and vertical components of the image. Other potential means of unique identification applicable to this invention can include, for example, Automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) techniques such as radio frequency identification (RFID)”; paragraph [0044].)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Edwards et al. (US 10846968 B1).
Claim 3:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu further discloses wherein the registration means includes a verification means for verifying the identity of a user desirous of registering, wherein the verification means is configured to compare input identification details against those contained in another system typically yields successful verification. (See paragraphs [0057]-[0058], “[a]ccount 1030 information is sent to third-party payment processing company for initial verification. Test deposits are generated for bank accounts 1030 to confirm. Once third-party payment processing company (e.g. Stripe™) verifies account(s) 1030, it becomes a verified Deposit Method to Get a Tip account(s) 1030 and credential that can be updated, deleted, or augmented (including by adding additional deposit accounts 1056) at any point in time through the system 100 using input fields or buttons 1040.”)
Veznedaroglu does not explicitly disclose an official database whereupon matching of details typically yields successful verification.
However, Edwards, an analogous art of performing verification in a registration process, discloses wherein the registration means includes a verification means for verifying the identity of a user desirous of registering, wherein the verification means is configured to compare input identification details against those contained on an official database whereupon matching of details typically yields successful verification. (See col. 3, lines 42-64, “[i]n order to register, account numbers can be received for customers, and the electronic voter registration information can be matched to the verified identity information for the customers, and can include matching the received account numbers to account numbers stored by the financial institution for the customers.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Edwards in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to verify the registered account number with the financial institution, so as to ensure the entered account number is a real account number.
Claim 4:
Veznedaroglu in view of Edwards discloses the limitations shown above.
Edwards further discloses wherein the official database is in the form of a governmental database or a financial database managed by a banking institution. (See col. 3, lines 42-64, “[i]n order to register, account numbers can be received for customers, and the electronic voter registration information can be matched to the verified identity information for the customers, and can include matching the received account numbers to account numbers stored by the financial institution for the customers.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Edwards in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to verify the registered account number with the financial institution, so as to ensure the entered account number is a real account number.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Hurris (US 20210133724 A1).
Claim 9:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital currency payments are in the form of a cryptocurrency payment or a currency of a loyalty reward program.
However, Hurris, an analogous art of providing tips for services, discloses wherein the digital currency payments are in the form of a cryptocurrency payment. (See paragraph [0070], “[i]n some embodiments, selecting the tip for the service provider using the tipping application includes selecting an option to provide the tip in cryptocurrency.” Examiner’s Note: The claim describes the characteristics of the digital currency payments. Therefore, the claim recites nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Hurris in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow the tippers to use different types of currencies, such as cryptocurrency, to tip for the services, so as to improve the flexibility of the system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Kahn (US 11388601 B1).
Claim 10:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital currency is in the form of airtime.
However, Kahn, an analogous art of transferring airtime to another account, discloses wherein the digital currency is in the form of airtime. (See col. 26, lines 7-31, “so as to utilize prepaid billing that may be, without limitations, in the form of Airtime vouchers of differing denominations that users/consumers may acquire either in retail stores or online, which are then loaded into their cellular wallet (account). In some embodiments, the prepaid cellular account may serve as a fiat backed digital currency. For example, users may be also permitted to send (gift) airtime directly from one wallet to another using cellular network services provided.” Examiner’s Note: The claim describes the characteristics of the digital currency. Therefore, the claim recites nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Kahn in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow the tippers to use a different type of digital currency, such as airtime, to tip for the services, so as to improve the flexibility of the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Choi (US 20220108288 A1).
Claim 11:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu does not explicitly disclose wherein the account is configured to allow the registered user to transact with merchants or retailers, typically those associated with the gratuity system, at their till points.
However, Choi, an analogous art of tip management, discloses wherein the account is configured to allow the registered user to transact with merchants or retailers, typically those associated with the gratuity system, at their till points. (See Abstract, “[t]he software connects with an employer's existing point of sale (POS) platform used in retail settings (such as restaurants, etc.) and allows tips from cashless transactions to be seamlessly deposited directly into a service provider's bank account, prepaid debit card, or mobile payment app after each shift for a small fee.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Choi in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow a transaction with a merchant by using the user account, so that the user can effectively receive the funds for the tips.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Pendergrass (US 20140114695 A1).
Claim 12:
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu discloses a bank account receiving tip amounts. (See paragraph [0039] and paragraph [0058].)
Veznedaroglu does not explicitly disclose wherein the account is configured to allocate a percentage of funds to any one or more of the group including a retirement fund, pension fund, life insurance policy, funeral policy, disability fund, medical aid, education fund, loan, bond repayment, vehicle finance, financial services, financial advice, estate planning, and debt counselling.
However, Pendergrass, an analogous art of managing funds, discloses wherein the account is configured to allocate a percentage of funds to any one or more of the group including a retirement fund, pension fund, life insurance policy, funeral policy, disability fund, medical aid, education fund, loan, bond repayment, vehicle finance, financial services, financial advice, estate planning, and debt counselling. (See paragraph [0058], “[t]he system provides for calculating the workers' compensation premiums for a designated period based on the payroll processes, notifying the insured of the amount of funds and timing of each expected withdrawal from its bank account, withdrawing from the insured's bank account the premium funds and transferring the funds to the insurance carrier.” Examiner’s Note: The claim describes the characteristics of the funds to which they are allocated. Therefore, the claim recites nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Pendergrass in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allocate the funds in the account to pay for one or more bills, including insurance, so that the amounts in the account can be effectively distributed to cover the payment.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Detender (WO 2018189492 A1).
Claim 28
Veznedaroglu discloses the limitations shown above.
Veznedaroglu discloses effecting gratuity payments via the gratuity systems. (See Fig. 1; paragraphs [0036]-[0037], “[o]nce the QR code is recognized as being associated with a registered system recipient, the customer is presented with a variety of options for deciding or calculating the amount of the gratuity to be given…. Once the customer has made the necessary verification and/or selections of the amount of the gratuity, approving the gratuity payment initiates payment from a credit card, debit card or bank account controlled by, or associated with, the customer to a debit card or bank account controlled by, or associated with, the recipient(s)”; and Figs. 6A-6C.)
Veznedaroglu does not explicitly disclose wherein an incentivising means is provided for incentivising the public to effect gratuity payments via the gratuity system.
However, Detender, an analogous art of providing reward for using the system, discloses wherein an incentivising means is provided for incentivising the public to effect payments via the system. (See paragraph 4, page 8, “[a]dvantageously, the configuration of the system 1 and in particular the data management device 6 implement obtaining an electronic reward to stimulate exchanges to improve the attractiveness of the system”; paragraphs 12-14, page 13, “[t]he method continues with a step of optimizing the extent of the electronic reward, in particular the electronic purchase order, specifically according to determined parameters related to the user device 2, the partner device 3, the information about the user, information about the partner and / or the geographical position of said devices 2, 3…. The method includes a step of issuing said electronic reward, in particular electronic shopping vouchers, partners to the users…. The user is therefore stimulated to use the system because he knows he will get a reward and he wants to discover the extent by making the exchange especially the payment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Detender in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to attract more users of the gratuity application of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to issue rewards to the users who utilize the system, so that the users will use the system more because of the rewards.
Claim 29:
Veznedaroglu in view of Detender discloses the limitations shown above.
Detender discloses wherein the incentivising means is in the form of a reward system for rewarding a payer upon effecting a gratuity payment via the gratuity system. (See paragraph 4, page 8, “[a]dvantageously, the configuration of the system 1 and in particular the data management device 6 implement obtaining an electronic reward to stimulate exchanges to improve the attractiveness of the system”; paragraphs 12-14, page 13, “[t]he method continues with a step of optimizing the extent of the electronic reward, in particular the electronic purchase order, specifically according to determined parameters related to the user device 2, the partner device 3, the information about the user, information about the partner and / or the geographical position of said devices 2, 3…. The method includes a step of issuing said electronic reward, in particular electronic shopping vouchers, partners to the users…. The user is therefore stimulated to use the system because he knows he will get a reward and he wants to discover the extent by making the exchange especially the payment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Detender in the Veznedaroglu system. Moreover, in order to attract more users of the gratuity application of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement a reward system to issue rewards to the users who utilize the system, so that the rewards can be effectively issued to the users and that the users will use the system more because of the rewards.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veznedaroglu (US 20200334649 A1) in view of Detender (WO 2018189492 A1), and further in view of Reid et al. (US 20110302021 A1).
Claim 30:
Veznedaroglu in view of Detender discloses the limitations shown above.
Neither Veznedaroglu nor Detender discloses wherein the incentivising means includes tax benefits wherein gratuity payments via the gratuity system are tax deductible.
However, Reid, an analogous art of providing tax benefits, discloses wherein the incentivising means includes tax benefits wherein gratuity payments via the system are tax deductible. (See paragraph [0020]. Examiner’s Note: First, the claim describes the characteristics of the incentivizing means. Therefore, the claim recites nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Second, the claim discloses reducing and/or avoiding tax liability. Therefore, it shall be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Reid in the Veznedaroglu system as modified. Moreover, in order to attract more users of the gratuity application of the Veznedaroglu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to issue different types of rewards to the users who utilize the system, so that the users will use the system more to obtain more benefits from the rewards.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Sabet et al. (US 20160379201 A1) discloses facilitating gratuities to individuals and employees of establishments based on location.
Abed (US 20150356547 A1) discloses the provision of tips to service providers through an instant and easy process whereby a tipper can utilize his/her mobile computing device to quickly identify the individual to be tipped and process a tip transaction via the same mobile computing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Examiner, Art Unit 3699