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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to application number 19045609 filed on February 05, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12248925 B2. Although the conflicting claim is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is directed to a similar subject matter contained in claim 1 of the ‘925 B2 patent. The only differences between the instant application and the ‘925 B2 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claim 1 is contained in claim of the ‘925 B2.
Claim
US 12248925 B2
Application #19045609
Application #17861405
Continuation to Application #17861405
1
A method for facilitating electronic transactions between a first mobile device and a second mobile device leveraging a short range network when both the first mobile device and the second mobile device fail to connect to a central server via the internet, the electronic transactions occurring between a first mobile application operational at the first mobile device and a second mobile application operational at the second mobile device, the method comprising:
A method for facilitating electronic transactions between a first mobile device and a second mobile device leveraging a short-range network when both the first mobile device and the second mobile device do not support internet connection, (refer to 112(b) for examiner’s interpretation) the electronic transactions occurring between a first mobile application operational at the first mobile device and a second mobile application operational at the second mobile device, the method comprising:
by the first mobile device:
receiving a request to initiate an electronic transaction with a recipient, the electronic transaction comprising a value of funds for transferring to the recipient;
at the first mobile device:
receiving a request to initiate an electronic transaction with a recipient, the electronic transaction comprising a value of funds for transferring to the recipient;
accessing a periodically updated database storing a first account comprising an account balance; determining that the account balance is greater than the value of funds; in response to the determining that the account balance is greater than the value of funds, authorizing the request;
accessing a periodically updated database storing a first account comprising an account balance, and, in response to a determination that the account balance is greater than the value of funds, authorizing the request;
attempting to connect to the central server via the internet;
determining that the first mobile device fails to establish an internet connection; and
determining that the first mobile device fails to establish an internet connection; and
in response to the determining that the first mobile device fails to establish the internet connection, transmitting:
a short-range communication, the short-range communication establishing a short-range communication session with a second mobile device within a distance of the first mobile device; and
in response to the determining, transmitting:
a short-range communication to establish a short-range communication session with a second mobile device within a distance of the first mobile device; and
a verification request to the second mobile device, the verification request for verifying that a user of the second mobile device is the recipient;
a verification request to the second mobile device, the verification request for verifying that a user of the second mobile device is the recipient;
by the second mobile device:
attempting to connect to the central server via the internet;
at the second mobile device:
determining that the second mobile device fails to establish the internet connection;
determining that the second mobile device does not support an internet connection;
selecting to establish the short-range communication session with the first mobile device; and
selecting to establish the short-range communication session with the first mobile device; and
retrieving from a database, data identifying the user of the second mobile device;
retrieving from a database, data identifying the user of the second mobile device;
by the first mobile device:
receiving the data from the second mobile device in response to the verification request; and
at the first mobile device:
receiving the data from the second mobile device in response to the verification request; and
verifying, in the database, that the data is associated with the recipient;
by the second mobile device:
receiving verification from the first mobile device that the data is associated with the recipient;
in response to receiving the verification from the first mobile device that the data is associated with the recipient, updating an account balance of a second account associated with the recipient by increasing the account balance by an amount equal to the value of funds, the account balance stored in the periodically updated database at the second mobile device; and
verifying, in the database, that the data is associated with the recipient;
at the second mobile device:
in response to receiving the verification from the first mobile device, updating an account balance of a second account associated with the recipient by increasing the account balance by an amount equal to the value of funds, the account balance stored in the periodically updated database at the second mobile device; and
transmitting transaction data associated with the transfer into a transaction processing queue;
transmitting transaction data associated with the transfer into a transaction processing queue;
by the first mobile device:
updating the account balance in the first account to reflect the transfer; and
at the first mobile device, updating the account balance in the first account to reflect the transfer; and
by the central server:
determining that the internet connection has been established at the first mobile device and at the second mobile device;
at a central server, when internet connection is re-established:
in response to the determining that the internet connection has been established at the first mobile device and at the second mobile device, receiving the transaction data from the transaction processing queue;
receiving the transaction data from the transaction processing queue;
prior to processing the electronic transaction based on the transaction data, verifying the electronic transaction, the verifying comprising:
retrieving from the first mobile device:
a first activity log storing a log of applications accessed on the first mobile device and a timestamp for each accessed application; and
a first browser timeout history;
prior to processing the electronic transaction based on the transaction data, verifying the electronic transaction, the verifying comprising:
retrieving from the first mobile device:
a first activity log storing a log of applications accessed on the first mobile device and a timestamp for each accessed application; and
a first browser timeout history;
retrieving from the second mobile device:
a second activity log storing a log of applications accessed on the second mobile device and a timestamp for each accessed application; and
a second browser timeout history;
retrieving from the second mobile device:
a second activity log storing a log of applications accessed on the second mobile device and a timestamp for each accessed application; and
a second browser timeout history;
in response to a receipt of the retrieving the first activity log, the first browser timeout history, the second activity log and the second browser timeout history, verifying that:
the first mobile application was active when a browser on the first mobile device was in timeout;
following a receipt of the first activity log, the first browser timeout history, the second activity log and the second browser timeout history, verifying that:
the first mobile application was active when a browser on the first mobile device was in timeout;
the second mobile application was active when a browser on the second mobile device was in timeout; and
that a timestamp of use of the first mobile application overlaps a timestamp of a use of the second mobile application; and
the second mobile application was active when a browser on the second mobile device was in timeout; and
that a timestamp of use of the first mobile application is within a pre-determined range to a timestamp of a use of the second rnobi1e application; and
in response to the verifying, processing the request by updating an online account balance of the user of the first mobile device and an online account balance of the user of the second mobile device so that the online account balance reflects the transfer.
in response to the verifying, processing the request by updating an online account balance of the user of the first mobile device and an online account balance of the user of the second mobile device to reflect the transfer.
Claim 1 of [#19045609] is rejected over [US Patent No. 12248925 B2 (#17861405)]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Unclear Scope
Claim 1 recites “A method for facilitating electronic transactions between a first mobile device and a second mobile device leveraging a short-range network when both the first mobile device and the second mobile device do not support internet connection, … determining that the first mobile device fails to establish an internet connection; and … determining that the second mobile device does not support an internet connection”.
Specification, (PG Pub US 20250182087 A1, FIG. 6, item 601; para 134) recites, “… Computer 601 may alternatively be referred to herein as an "engine," "server" or a "computing device." Computer 601 may be a workstation, desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or any other suitable computing device …”, which discloses that a computer, an engine, a server, or a computing device may be a laptop, tablet, smartphone, or any other suitable computing device, and therefore the first and second mobile device of the instant application may be interpreted as a laptop, a tablet, or a smartphone as in FIG. 6, item 601.
Specification, (‘087 A1, FIG. 6, items 601, 629, 631; para 138) recites, “… Computer 601 may be connected to other systems via a local area network (LAN) interface 613. Computer 601 may operate in a networked environment supporting connections to one or more remote computers, such as terminals 641 and 651. Terminals 641 and 651 may be personal computers or servers that include many or all of the elements described above relative to computer 601. When used in a LAN networking environment, computer 601 is connected to LAN 625 through a LAN interface 613 or an adapter. When used in a WAN networking environment, computer 601 may include a modem 627 or other means for establishing communications over WAN 629, such as Internet 631…”, which discloses that a computer (or as in the instant application, the first and second mobile device) when used in a WAN networking environment, the computer may include a modem or other means for establishing communications over the WAN, such as the Internet, and therefore the first and second mobile device of the instant application have the capability that do support connecting to the internet.
It is not clear whether the first and second mobile computing device have the capability or do not have the capability to support an internet connection. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, claim 1 is unclear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 12 and 18. Dependent claims 2-11, which depend from claim 1; dependent claims 13-17, which depend from claim 12; and dependent claims 19-20, which depends from claim 18 are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
For purposes of examination, the claim language “the first mobile device and second mobile device do not support internet communication” is being interpreted as “not being connected to the internet” as recited in Specification, (‘087 A1, para 73), reciting “… transactions executed by the systems and methods of the invention may only be deemed to be real if the mobile phones executing the transaction were not connected to the internet while the transaction was taking place …”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Improper Dependent Claim
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 1 further comprising, at pre-determined intervals while internet connection is established …”, is associated with “the first mobile device and the second mobile device do not support internet connection” in claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. As the claim language in claim 4 of “at pre-determined intervals while internet connection is established” does not further limit the claim language “the first mobile device and the second mobile device do not support internet connection” of claim 1, claim 4 is not a proper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nguyen et al (U. S. Patent No. 10885519 B1) – Mobile Transaction Platform
Nguyen discloses systems and methods for securely processing one or more digital transactions between a sender and a recipient using smartcards assigned to the sender and the recipient. Stored on each smartcard are the asset balances of one or more accounts owned by or accessible to the user of the smartcard. If internet access is available at the time of the transaction, a record of the transaction may be uploaded to a secure and auditable storage structure. If internet access is unavailable at the time of the transaction, a record of the transaction may be securely stored by both the sender's smartcard and the recipient's smartcard. When internet access becomes available, the transaction records may be transferred to the internet by a terminal and deleted from the smartcards. Records of the account balances of the users of the smartcard would be updated in accordance with the transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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 (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 14, 2026