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 .
Acknowledgment
The amendment/request for reconsideration dated 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections-
Examiner acknowledges amendments to overcome rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. Wherein at least claim 1 recites, “…receiving the payment trigger information from the business end…” and the specification discloses [0038] that the business end can be an electronic terminal installed at the store end (e.g., electronic cashier system) such that the business end/cashier terminal can generate a two-dimensional barcode and the consumer can use their mobile phone to scan the QR code. Thus the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 is withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to overcome rejection claims 9-17 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. Thus the rejection of these claims is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections
At least claim 1 recites, “…the business end providing payment trigger information; the consumer end receiving the payment trigger information from the business end…” According to the specification [¶0012 & ¶0022] in one embodiment…the payment trigger information comprises one or more identification data corresponding to the business end.” In another embodiment [¶0015 & ¶0024] the payment trigger information comprises a payment amount.
It is respectfully maintained that references, in determining obviousness are not read in isolation but for what they teach with prior art as a whole and thus patent assignee’s reference-by-reference attack on prior art to demonstrate non-obviousness is not persuasive. It should also be noted that During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” [ e.g., see The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)], however the Examiner is barred from reading limitations from the specification into the claim language [e.g., see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2s 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)].
Thus it is being interpreted form the primary reference that the business end provides trigger information (e.g., see wherein Luciani discloses that the QR code is displayed near the POS and is provided by the business end by being placed where it is visible to the customer using the Mobile Payment Application. It is also disclosed that each QR code contains trigger information in the form of at least data identifying the merchant ID [0030].
Wherein the Applicant has asserted that claim 1 recites, “…. providing a mobile payment interface to the consumer end…, wherein the mobile payment interface contains a plurality of mobile payment links, and each of the mobile payment links corresponds to one mobile payment tool;… “, according the specification, in one embodiment comprises a business-end database comprising business-end data and a plurality of identification data wherein the payment trigger information comprises one of the identification corresponding to the business end. There is also another embodiment comprises a mobile payment database, the mobile payment database comprises a plurality of mobile payment tool data, and the plurality of mobile payment links of the mobile payment interface respectively corresponding to the plurality of mobile payment tool data.
It is clear that the primary reference teaches the customer’s use of a mobile payment application on a customer’s mobile device to process payments that are received and acknowledged by the customer’s Mobile Payment Application and that can be enabled by multiple mobile payment platforms [0023]. It is also being taught by the reference that the QR code is taken to a mobile payment server (MPS) and that multiple QR codes may be displayed, each addressing a different payment platform based upon the customer’s preference and could communicate with the device via a unique MPS integration[0030].It maintained that under the broadest reasonable interpretation that the media store the QR codes acts similar to the mobile payment interface to the consumer end where the QR code comprises payment trigger information and wherein the plurality of QR codes act as links that correspond to a mobile payment tool [see ¶0030-“…Multiple QR codes may be displayed at once, each addressing a different payment platform…provided that each individual payment platform communicate with the device directly or via a unique MPS integration. Each QR code contains data identifying the merchant ID….The mobile payment application transmits these three pieces of data,…, which are stored or entered on the mobile device, to the MPS…”].
In regards to the previous office action, it was discussed and is repeated herein that Luciani fails to disclose that the service is a subrogation service. Preiston discloses a subrogation service [¶0023], [90105]. Since Preiston also discloses subrogation applications on a mobile device [¶0117-¶0118, ¶0122],
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have integrated a subrogation service into Luciani, being an alternative service for making payments of an amount of money based upon collected premiums of insured clients. [see Prieston, ¶0106].
It is for these reasons that the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection is maintained below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani (US 2015/0058145) in view of Prieston (US 2005/0203779)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Luciani discloses a mobile payment method (Fig. 2)(Fig. 3), applied to a mobile payment system, the mobile payment system comprises
a service end (Fig. 5)(“Check-out Cloud Servers”)[¶0010],
at least one business end [¶0016- POS/Terminal] and
at least one consumer end [¶0021-¶0022],
the mobile payment method comprising steps of:
the business end providing payment trigger information; [¶0030-see QR code containing at least Merchant ID et al]
the consumer end receiving the payment trigger information from the business end and establishing a communication connection with the service end based on the payment trigger information;[¶0030]
the service end providing a mobile payment interface to the consumer end based on the payment trigger information, wherein the mobile payment interface contains a plurality of mobile payment links;[¶0001] and
each of the mobile payment links corresponds to one mobile payment tool; ¶0030] and
when of the mobile payment interface shown by the consumer end is selected, a mobile payment action between the service end and the consumer end is completed by using a mobile payment tool corresponding to the selected mobile payment link.[¶0001, ¶0030]
Luciani fails to disclose that the service is a subrogation service. Preiston discloses a subrogation service [¶0023], [¶0105]. Since Preiston also discloses subrogation applications on a mobile device [¶0117-¶0118, ¶0122], It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have integrated a subrogation service into Luciani, being an alternative service for making payments of an amount of money based upon collected premiums of insured clients.[see Prieston, ¶0106]
Regarding claim 2 and 10, Luciani discloses further comprising a step of: when the mobile payment action is completed, the subrogation service end sending a payment success notification to the business end.[¶0030]
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Luciani discloses wherein the mobile payment action at least comprises: the consumer end paying a payment to the subrogation service end. [¶0030]
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Luciani discloses further comprising a step of: when the mobile payment action is completed, the subrogation service end further performing a settlement action to pay a payment to the business end. [¶0030]
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Luciani discloses wherein the subrogation service end comprises a business-end database, the business-end database comprises a plurality of business-end data and a plurality of identification data corresponding to the business-end data, respectively, and the payment trigger information comprises one of the identification data corresponding to the business end. [¶0030]
Regarding claims 6 and 14. Luciani discloses wherein each one of the identification data comprises a barcode, a two-dimensional code, and/or a specific pattern.[¶0031-QR code]
Regarding claims 7 and 16 Luciani discloses wherein the subrogation service end comprises a mobile payment database, the mobile payment database comprises a plurality of mobile payment tool data, and the plurality of mobile payment links of the mobile payment interface respectively corresponding to the plurality of mobile payment tool data. [¶0021, ¶0030]
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Luciani discloses wherein the payment trigger information comprises a payment amount information, and the consumer end completes the mobile payment action through the mobile payment tool and based on the payment amount information. [¶0021, ¶0030]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janiga (US 2026/0057366) discloses a cash transaction machine.
Wang (US 2025/0363478) disclose mobile payment method and system
****Tyler et al (US 10,296,894) disclose QR code enabled P2P payment systems and methods. [see Fig. 1 column 4,line 9+]
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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights