DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on April 14, 2026 for 19/034,096
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the combination of references, Ouellette in view of Mock and in further view of Vogel does not disclose the claimed "transaction token” and does not correspond to the cited session identifier. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Mock was specifically utilized to disclose “transaction token to conduct reconciliation procedures”. Mock discloses in paragraph 0045 token in this instance can be any identifier to associate with a campaign, offer, or other marketing device, regardless of whether it is encrypted or not. Mock discloses in paragraph 0053 how each token is for a single or multiple use, but can be securely and uniquely associated with a specific campaign, an interaction with a specific consumer, and the completion of a specific transaction/interaction. Also, Ouellette discloses that the session identifier is used to conduct the transaction using the selected payment option.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette et al. (US 12,026,686 B2) in view of MOCK et al. (US 2020/0250694 A1) and in further view of Vogel et al. (US 9,882,892 B1)
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Ouellette discloses a method for managing [transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures], the method comprising, by a software application executing on a computing device (Col. 3 lines 8-18, Col. 4 lines 51-Col. 5 line 7, Col. 6 lines 13-23):
receiving a first request to perform a transaction (Col. 3 lines 44-48)
providing, to a transaction framework implemented on the computing device, a second request to perform the transaction; (Col. 3 lines 49-53)
displaying, under instruction of the transaction framework, a user interface (UI) that indicates the transaction will be performed independent from a management entity that is associated with the computing device and separate from the software application executing on the computing device, [wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction] (Col. 3 lines 1-14, Col. 7 lines 19-56)
receiving, via the UI, selection of the first option to approve the transaction; and in response to receiving the selection of the first option to approve the transaction (Col. 4 lines 6-16)
receiving a [transaction token] from the transaction framework, wherein and the transaction token corresponds to the transaction includes information relevant to facilitate the reconciliation procedures, and is generated by the management entity that provides the transaction token to the transaction framework; and (Col. 4 lines 6-16 “session identifier is referred to the transaction token”)
providing the transaction token to a developer entity associated with the software application to cause the developer entity to perform the transaction, wherein, when the transaction is performed, the transaction token enables a reconciliation procedure to be carried out (Col. 4 lines 17-35)
Ouellette does not specifically disclose: [transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures].
MOCK however discloses transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures. (¶0045, ¶0047, ¶0052, ¶0053, ¶0112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [transaction tokens to facilitate reconciliation procedures], as disclosed in MOCK, in order to provide a matching and settlement system to associate specific marketing/advertising campaigns to completed
sales transactions or in-application interactions using a token (see MOCK ¶0045).
The combination of Ouellette and MOCK does not disclose: [wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction].
Vogel however discloses: wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction (Col. 7 lines 45-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [wherein the UI includes a first option to approve the transaction, and a second option to cancel the transaction], as disclosed in Vogel, in order to provide a system for authorizing user access to resources or performing user authorization using intent tokens (see Vogel Col. 1 lines 19-22).
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Ouellette, MOCK and Vogel disclose the invention as above.
MOCK further discloses: wherein the reconciliation procedure comprises: performing a second transaction that is based on the transaction; and providing, to the developer entity, a report that includes information associated with at least the second transaction (¶0041, ¶0045, ¶0047, ¶0052)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [wherein the reconciliation procedure comprises: performing a second transaction that is based on the transaction; and providing, to the developer entity, a report that includes information associated with at least the second transaction], as disclosed in MOCK, in order to provide a matching and settlement system to associate specific marketing/advertising campaigns to completed sales transactions or in-application interactions using a token (see MOCK ¶0045).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, Ouellette discloses wherein the transaction framework comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) that is communicatively coupled to: at least the software application and the management entity (Col. 3 lines 8-18, Col. 4 lines 51-Col. 5 line 7, Col. 6 lines 13-23)
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Ouellette discloses wherein the transaction token is provided in response to a third request issued by the transaction framework to the management entity, wherein the third request includes: a session identifier associated with the third request (Col. 4 lines 6-16) , a unique identifier associated with the software application (Col. 4 lines 6-16), transaction type information that defines that the transaction will take place through the software application rather than through at least one webpage that is loaded in a web browser application executing on the computing device (Col. 4 lines 6-16), and storefront information that includes locale, currency, tax, and commission information associated with the software application, the computing device, the transaction, or some combination thereof (Col. 2 lines 7-12)
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Ouellette discloses wherein the first request is based on a user of the software application seeking to engage in the transaction with the software application (Col. 3 lines 1-14)
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of MOCK in view of Vogel and in further view of CRANFILL et al. (US 2019/0347181 A1)
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Ouellette, MOCK and Vogel does not disclose: wherein the UI is hidden in response to receiving, via the UI, the selection of the first option to approve the transaction.
CRANFILL however discloses: wherein the UI is hidden in response to receiving, via the UI, the selection of the first option to approve the transaction (FIG. 8DD; ¶0308).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [wherein the UI is hidden in response to receiving, via the UI, the selection of the first option to approve the transaction], as disclosed in CRANFILL, in order to provide an electronic device that suppresses auxiliary functions of certain applications when an application usage limit or restriction criteria associated with those applications is reached (see CRANFILL abstract).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of MOCK in view of Vogel and in further view of RICHTER et al. (US 2023/0376926 A1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Ouellette, MOCK and Vogel does not disclose: receiving transaction results from the developer entity; and updating the transaction token based on the transaction results.
RICHTER however discloses: receiving transaction results from the developer entity (¶0095); and updating the transaction token based on the transaction results (¶0164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ouellette to include [receiving transaction results from the developer entity (¶0095); and updating the transaction token based on the transaction results], as disclosed in RICHTER, in order to provide a system for secure online transaction using encrypted tokens (see RICHTER abstract).
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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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 W 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights