DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on May 19, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and claims 21-40 have been added and entered. Therefore, claims 1-40 are pending.
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/731,007, filed April 27, 20222, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 recite allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
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 provided the reference application or patent either 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 MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,109. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases are concerned with generating, a first device-specific actions-sequence token for authenticating permissions for an actions-sequence session;
communicating, a workflow authorization request comprising the first device-specific actions-sequence token;
receiving, a workflow execution authorization in response to the workflow authorization request;
executing, by the at least one processor, within an actions-sequence session, an instance of the at least one automated processing actions-sequence based at least in part on;
the workflow execution authorization, and the user data of the user; and transmitting, a notification to a computing device associated with the user based on the user data, the notification being associated with the execution of the at least one automated processing actions-sequence.
As per Claim 21, ‘109 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a workflow request message from an initiator device associated with an entity, wherein the workflow request message is associated with a workflow request identifying at least one user profile identifier and an actions-sequence identifier identifying at least one automated processing actions-sequence;
generating, by the at least one processor, a first device-specific actions-sequence token for authenticating permissions for an actions-sequence session;
communicating, by the at least one processor to at least one authorization service, a workflow authorization request comprising the first device-specific actions-sequence token;
receiving, by the at least one processor from the at least one authorization service, a workflow execution authorization in response to the workflow authorization request;
wherein the workflow execution authorization comprises:
a verification that the first device-specific actions-sequence token matches a second device-specific actions-sequence token, and user data of the user;
executing, by the at least one processor, within an actions-sequence session, an instance of the at least one automated processing actions-sequence based at least in part on:
the workflow execution authorization, and the user data of the user;
wherein the user data user data of the user confidentially stored separate from the entity; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a notification to a computing device associated with the user based on the user data, the notification being associated with the execution of the at least one automated processing actions-sequence.
Claim 21 of the instant application teaches a method comprising receiving a workflow request message, generating an action sequence token, communicating said token to an authorization service, receiving a workflow execution authorization from the authorization service, executing an instance of the automated processing actions sequence and transmitting a notification to a device associated with a user.
Claim 21 of the instant application fails to disclose determining, by the at least one processor, the at least one automated processing actions- sequence based at least in part on: the actions-sequence identifier, and at least one registered actions-sequence, generating, by the at least one processor, at least one criterion update in response to the executing the instance of the automated processing actions-sequence and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a criterion notification to the initiator device ;wherein the criterion notification comprises an indication of the at least one criterion update.
Claim 1 of the issued patent recites a method comprising receiving a workflow request message, determining, by the at least one processor, the at least one automated processing actions- sequence based at least in part on: the actions-sequence identifier, generating an action sequence token, communicating said token to a an authorization service, receiving a workflow execution authorization from the authorization service, executing an instance of the automated processing actions sequence generating, by the at least one processor, at least one criterion update in response to the executing the instance of the automated processing actions-sequence and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a criterion notification to the initiator device ;wherein the criterion notification comprises an indication of the at least one criterion update and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a criterion notification to the initiator device, a computing device associated with the user, or both; wherein the criterion notification comprises an indication of the at least one criterion update, providing an improved method by notifying both the initiator device and computing device associated with the user.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the method recited in claim 21 of the instant application to include the ability to determining, by the at least one processor, the at least one automated processing actions- sequence based at least in part on: the actions-sequence identifier, and at least one registered actions-sequence, generating, by the at least one processor, at least one criterion update in response to the executing the instance of the automated processing actions-sequence and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a criterion notification to the initiator device ;wherein the criterion notification comprises an indication of the at least one criterion update.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter with substantially similar claim language.
As per Claim 22, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 21, further comprising electronically communicating, by the at least one processor, the notification to contact information identified in the user data, wherein the contact information identifies a communication address of the computing device. (Claim 2)
As per Claim 23, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 22, wherein the contact information comprises a telephone number specified in a user account at a financial institution and the notification comprises a text message to the telephone number. (Claim 3)
As per Claim 24, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 21, wherein the first device-specific actions-sequence token is a one-time token that expires upon generating the notification. (Claim 4)
As per Claim 25, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 21, further comprising receiving, by the at least one processor, an electronic event authentication message via a payment advice and authorization message standard. (Claim 5)
As per Claim 26, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 25, further comprising receiving, by the at least one processor, the workflow request message via an application programming interface (API) over an Internet. (Claim 6)
As per Claim 27, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 21, wherein the initiator device comprises a point-of-sale device. (Claim 7)
As per Claim 28, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 27, wherein the point-of-sale device comprises a payment system associated with a merchant. (Claim 8)
As per Claim 29, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 21, further comprising receiving, by the at least one processor, a transaction fulfillment message as the notification from a merchant associated with the initiator device, wherein the transaction fulfillment message indicates a fulfillment of a condition of a transaction associated with the workflow request message. (Claim 9)
As per Claim 30, ‘109 discusses the method of claim 21, wherein the notification comprises a purchased item shipping confirmation. (Claim 10)
As per Claim 31, ‘109 discusses a system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute software instruction causing the at least one processor to perform steps to:
receive a workflow request message from an initiator device associated with an entity, wherein the workflow request message is associated with a workflow request identifying at least one user profile identifier and an actions-sequence identifier identifying at least one automated processing actions-sequence;
generate a first device-specific actions-sequence token for authenticating permissions for an actions-sequence session;
communicating, by the at least one processor to at least one authorization service, a workflow authorization request comprising the first device-specific actions- sequence token;
receiving, by the at least one processor from the at least one authorization service, a workflow execution authorization in response to the workflow authorization request;
wherein the workflow execution authorization comprises:
a verification that the first device-specific actions-sequence token matches a second device-specific actions-sequence token, and user data of the user; execute within an actions-sequence session, an instance of the at least one automated processing actions-sequence based at least in part on:
the workflow execution authorization, and the user data of the user;
wherein the user data user data of the user confidentially stored separate from the entity; and transmit a notification to a computing device associated with the user based on the user data, the notification being associated with the execution of the at least one automated processing actions-sequence. (Claim 11)
As per Claim 32, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 31, wherein the at least one processor executing the software instructions further causes the at least one processor to perform steps to electronically communicate the notification to contact information identified in the user data, wherein the contact information identifies a communication address of the computing device. (Claim 12)
As per Claim 33, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 32, wherein the contact information comprises a telephone number specified in a user account at a financial institution and the notification comprises a text message to the telephone number. (Claim 13)
As per Claim 34, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 31, wherein the first device-specific actions-sequence token is a one-time token that expires upon generating the notification. (Claim 14)
As per Claim 35, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 31, wherein the at least one processor executing the software instructions further causes the at least one processor to perform steps to receive an electronic event authentication message via a payment advice and authorization message standard. (Claim 15)
As per Claim 36, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 35, wherein the at least one processor executing the software instructions further causes the at least one processor to perform steps to receive the workflow request message via an application programming interface (API) over an Internet. (Claim 16)
As per Claim 37, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 31, wherein the initiator device comprises a point-of-sale device. (Claim 17)
As per Claim 38, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 37, wherein the point-of-sale device comprises a payment system associated with a merchant. (Claim 18)
As per Claim 39, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 31, wherein the at least one processor executing the software instructions further causes the at least one processor to perform steps to receive a transaction fulfillment message as the notification from a merchant associated with the initiator device, wherein the transaction fulfillment message indicates a fulfillment of a condition of a transaction associated with the workflow request message. (Claim 19)
As per Claim 40, ‘109 discusses the system of claim 31, wherein the notification comprises a purchased item shipping confirmation. (Claim 17)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oberheide et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0255054 discusses a method including registering an authority device for an account on an auth platform; receiving transaction request from an initiator to the auth platform; messaging the authority device with the transaction request; receiving an authority agent response from the authority device to the auth platform; if the authority agent response confirms the transaction, communicating a confirmed transaction to the initiator; and if the authority agent response denies the transaction, communicating a denied transaction to the initiator. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with 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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights