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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 4 March 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8; Claim 11, line 4 recites “a vehicle including the electronic device”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a vehicle, including the electronic device,”.
Claim 1, line 12; Claim 11, line 8 recites “caller when”. This appears to be a typographical error of “caller, when”.
Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to.
Claim 3, line 5 and claim 13, line 3-4 recites “information when”. This appears to be a typographical error of “information, when”.
Claim 9, line 5 and claim 19, line 4 recites “callers when”. This appears to be a typographical error of “callers, when”.
Claim 10, line 6 and claim 20, line 5 recites “callers when”. This appears to be a typographical error of “callers, when”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 11-20 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
obtain at least one of information about a caller calling a vehicle to a departure point, information about the departure point provided by the caller, or any combination thereof; and
register card information of a card corresponding to the information about the caller, when the card information is not registered corresponding to the information about the caller, the card information being obtained based on a first card of the caller who boards the vehicle at the departure point.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses paying a fair for boarding a called vehicle. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of paying for a service, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): the electronic device; a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a first card tagging. This physical act of tapping a card does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction individually or in combination do not merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a first card tagging. This physical act of tapping a card does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore these additional elements individually nor in combination do not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3 and 5-6 further include(s) the additional element(s): a second card tagging (claim 2 and 5-6), third card tagging (claim 3), an application for the driver (claim 5) . This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-3 and 5-6 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4 and 8-10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 4 and 8-10 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 7 further include(s) the additional element(s): a communication circuit, receiving information from a card tagging device through the communication circuit. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 7 is/are ineligible.
Claim 11 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 11 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 11 recites the following additional elements: the electronic device This additional element does not more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 11 further recites the additional element of card tagging. This additional elements does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). These additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the claim into a practical application nor do they render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 12-13 and 15-16 further include(s) the additional element(s): a second card tagging (claim 12 and 15-16), third card tagging (claim 13), an application for the driver (claim 15) . This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 12-13 and 15-16 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 14 and 18-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 11. Therefor claim(s) 14 and 18-20 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 17 further include(s) the additional element(s): a communication circuit, receiving information from a card tagging device through the communication circuit. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 17 is/are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis teaches an electronic device comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain at least one of information about a caller calling a vehicle, information about the departure point provided by the caller, or any combination thereof; (Col. 40 ll. 17-45 “the user may be brought to a further interface enabling the user to take advantage of a subset of functionalities accessible to the user via a separate third party client application 116 without ever leaving the mobile wallet client application. […] the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., to be picked up at the user's current location”) and
register card information of a card corresponding to the information about the caller, when the card information is not registered corresponding to the information about the caller, the card information being obtained based on a first card tagging of the caller who boards the vehicle at the departure point. (Col. 24, ll. 61- Col. 25 ll. 21 “For example, the mobile wallet client application 112 may present the user with displays enabling the user to input information pertaining to various payment vehicles. The screens may enable the user to manually input information (e.g., a PAN) pertaining to a payment vehicle, or enable the user to take a picture of a payment vehicle.”; Col. 31, ll. 4-16 “At process 302, a user request to register for a mobile wallet is received.”; Col. 31, ll. 17-45 “registration interfaces may prompt the user to input information pertaining to payment vehicles (e.g., accounts, gift cards, credit cards, and the like) that the user wishes to provision to the mobile wallet.”; Fig. 3; Examiner notes when the user makes a new mobile wallet account, the registration interface prompts for payment vehicle information.)
Ellis does not teach:
a vehicle including the electronic device.
However, Kelly teaches:
a vehicle including the electronic device. (Paragraph [0176] “The taximeter 301 is configured for installation in the taxi”)
This operation of Kelly is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing payment for a service (i.e. rideshare). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate the vehicle including the electronic device as taught by Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to execute a payment application to facilitate electronic payment of the fare due (see Abstract of Kelly).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on a second card tagging of the caller after registering the obtained card information corresponding to the information about the caller. (Col. 40, ll. 17-45 “By selecting a payment vehicle in the first field 502 and interacting with the second payment service depiction 520, the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., to be picked up at the user's current location and pay using the selected payment vehicle).”; Col. 36, ll. 26-58 “The account-entering window 412 enables the user to input accounts other than those listed in the account identifier window 410.”; Fig. 4B)
Regarding claim 7, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis further teaches:
a communication circuit, (Col. 27, ll. 30-63 “telecommunication circuits”)
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to obtain the card information by receiving the card information obtained based on the first card tagging from a card tagging device through the communication circuit. (Col. 24, ll. 61- Col. 25 ll. 21 “For example, the mobile wallet client application 112 may present the user with displays enabling the user to input information pertaining to various payment vehicles. The screens may enable the user to manually input information (e.g., a PAN) pertaining to a payment vehicle, or enable the user to take a picture of a payment vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 8, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
identify the card information based on an identification number of the card; (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “applications (e.g., third party client applications 116) including the same UID may share information stored in relation to the mobile wallet client application 112.”; Col. 33, ll. 15-36 “based on a payment vehicle PAN [personal account number] entered by the user in the registration interfaces presented to the user at 304, the mobile wallet circuit 154 may identify a payment vehicle type (e.g., a credit card, debit card, gift card, checking account, or the like),”) and
identify the information about the caller based on the identification number of the caller. (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “a unique user ID (UID) is assigned to the mobile wallet client application 112”; Col. 37, ll. 3-37 “the user may also have to input identification information (e.g., a social security number) into the application. Any information input by the user may be transmitted to the identity verification circuit 139 and/or custom credit approval circuit 138 to be used to verify the user”)
Claims 11-12 and 17:
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1-2 and 7, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1-2 and 7, respectively.
Additionally, in regard to claim 11, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 8 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “registering…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Regarding claim 18, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the method of claim 11. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the card information includes an identification number of the card, (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “applications (e.g., third party client applications 116) including the same UID may share information stored in relation to the mobile wallet client application 112.”; Col. 33, ll. 15-36 “based on a payment vehicle PAN [personal account number] entered by the user in the registration interfaces presented to the user at 304, the mobile wallet circuit 154 may identify a payment vehicle type (e.g., a credit card, debit card, gift card, checking account, or the like),”) and
wherein the information about the caller includes an identification number of the caller. (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “a unique user ID (UID) is assigned to the mobile wallet client application 112”; Col. 37, ll. 3-37 “the user may also have to input identification information (e.g., a social security number) into the application. Any information input by the user may be transmitted to the identity verification circuit 139 and/or custom credit approval circuit 138 to be used to verify the user”)
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Garg (US 20160110836 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis in view of Kelly does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
determine whether the card information obtained based on a third card tagging matches the registered card information, when the card information is registered corresponding to the information about the caller; and
pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on the third card tagging when the card information obtained based on the third card tagging matches the registered card information.
However, Garg teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
determine whether the card information obtained based on a third card tagging matches the registered card information, when the card information is registered corresponding to the information about the caller; (Paragraph [0027] the request manage 112 can identify the payment profile ID from the transport request 183 and determine if the payment profile ID matches a stored payment profile ID associated with a business account 151; [0072] “The system 100 can receive a transport request for a transport service from a user's client device (410). […] the transport request can include […] a payment profile ID.”; Paragraph [0075] “if the system 100 receives an input corresponding to the selection of the payment profile ID associated with the business, the system 100 can process the transport request to arrange the transport service using the payment profile ID associated with the business (470).”) and
pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on the third card tagging when the card information obtained based on the third card tagging matches the registered card information. (Paragraph [0027] if the request manage 112 determines that the payment profile ID matches one associated with the user's account 155, the request manage 112 can cause the dispatch 110 to process the transport request 183 normally; [0075] “if the system 100 receives an input corresponding to the selection of the payment profile ID associated with the business, the system 100 can process the transport request to arrange the transport service using the payment profile ID associated with the business (470).”).
This operation of Garg is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a payment of a user of a transportation service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis and Kelly to incorporate the payment verification of Garg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to charge the user for a transportation service based on the payment profile (see paragraph [0010] of Garg).
Claim 13:
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 13 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 3, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 13 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 3, respectively.
Additionally, in regard to claim 13, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 7 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “paying…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Tessatuna (see attached NPL)
Regarding claim 4, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis in view of Kelly does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide guidance to the caller on how to call one of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle, by identifying that the caller gets off the vehicle.
However, Tessatuna teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide guidance to the caller on how to call one of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle, by identifying that the caller gets off the vehicle. (Tessatuna shows an allegiant post flight email. The email give the user instructions on how to book their next flight.)
This operation of Tessatuna is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to transporting a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate providing guidance to a caller on how to call a vehicle by identifying that the caller gets off the vehicle as taught by Tessatuna. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to provide an incentive to encourage the user to ride again (see Tessatuna).
Claim 14:
Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 14 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 4, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 14 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 4, respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Thacker (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 5, Ellis teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
provide a driver of the vehicle with at least one of the information about the caller, the information about the departure point, or any combination thereof, through an application for the driver of the vehicle; (Col. 40 ll. 17-45 “the driving service (e.g., Uber® or Lyft®). […] the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., to be picked up at the user's current location”)
(Col. 40, ll. 17-45 “By selecting a payment vehicle in the first field 502 and interacting with the second payment service depiction 520, the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., […] pay using the selected payment vehicle).”
(Col. 33, ll. 66 – Col. 34, ll. 24 “At process 316, the user's mobile wallet interfaces are configured. […] In some arrangements, the mobile wallet circuit 154 determines the [payment] vehicles to include based on information received from the user (e.g., via the registration interfaces presented at 304)”) and
provide (Col. 36, ll. 26-58 “The account-entering window 412 enables the user to input accounts other than those listed in the account identifier window 410.”; Fig. 4B)
Ellis does not teach:
provide the driver with guidance for performing the first card tagging;
provide the driver with guidance for determining whether to register the obtained card information corresponding to the information of the caller; and
provide the driver with guidance for performing the second card tagging.
However, Thacker teaches the known technique of providing the merchant with guidance for card tagging and registering card information corresponding to the information of the caller. (Page 1 “in
order to make sure you’re providing top-notch customer service, your employees will need to be thoroughly trained on your grocery cashier software. Keep reading for essential skills that all your cashiers should be proficient in while using your grocery store cashier software.”; Page 2 “cashiers must process the payment. […] cashiers may have to apply discounts or coupons, process multiple forms of payments, […] make sure your employees are well versed on how to use their cashier software to process payments. […] includes steps like obtaining new customer information, creating a loyalty account”)
This operation of Thacker is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing a transaction with a customer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate providing guidelines for the merchant as taught by Thacker. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to ensure top notch customer service (see page 1 of Thacker).
Claim 15:
Claim(s) 15 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 15 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 5, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 15 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 5, respectively.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Pan (US 20120214548 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Ellis in view of Kelly does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to determine whether the caller is on board based on the second card tagging.
However, Pan teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to determine whether the caller is on board based on the second card tagging. (Paragraph [0097] “a Smart Card swiping record pair {S.sub.i1, S.sub.i2} indicates that the subscriber of the Smart Card gets on the No. 375 bus route at the Xizhimen stop at 9:00 am, gets off at the Wudaokou stop at 9:45 am, and between 9:00 am-9:45 am” of Pan)
This operation of Pan is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a card account of a user of a transportation service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate determining whether a caller is on board based on a card tagging as taught by Pan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to track the status of the card user (see paragraph [0006] of Pan).
Claim 16:
Claim(s) 16 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 16 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 6, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 16 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 6, respectively.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Mudaliar (US 20170249638 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis in view of Kelly does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide a driver of the vehicle with information about a caller whose card information is not registered among information about each of a plurality of callers, when the plurality of callers exists.
However, Mudaliar teaches the known technique of providing a merchant with information about a buyer whose card information is not registered among information about each of a plurality of callers, when the plurality of callers exists. (Paragraph [0029] “the customer swipes a credit card in a case where the customer is attempting to make a payment with the credit card or desires to make a payment using the payment service provider, at the merchant terminal (302). Once the credit card is determined to not be acceptable for use with the merchant, the merchant terminal transmits the personally identifiable information embedded on the credit card to the server (303). Note that […] the customer may be asked whether the customer wishes to create a new account (assuming the customer does not already have an account) to enable payment while still at the merchant terminal. For example, the store clerk may ask the customer, and if the customer agrees, the clerk may enter an acceptance through the merchant terminal.”; Examiner notes the unregistered customer gives information to the clerk about wanting to register.)
This technique of Mudaliar is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing payment information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate the known technique of providing a merchant with information about a buyer as taught by Mudaliar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to improve the merchants' revenue and the customer's shopping experience (see Abstract of Mudaliar).
Regarding claim 10, Ellis in view of Kelly teaches the electronic device of claim 9.
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to pr(Col. 33, ll. 66 – Col. 34, ll. 24 “At process 316, the user's mobile wallet interfaces are configured. […] In some arrangements, the mobile wallet circuit 154 determines the [payment] vehicles to include based on information received from the user (e.g., via the registration interfaces presented at 304)”)
Ellis in view of Kelly does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide the driver with guidance for designating information about a caller to be registered corresponding to the card information obtained based on the first card tagging among the information about each of the plurality of callers when the plurality of callers exists according to information about a caller who is not registered corresponding to the card information.
However, Mudaliar teaches the known technique of providing the merchant with guidance for designating information about a buyer to be registered corresponding to the card information, obtained based on the first card tagging among the information about each of the plurality of buyers when the plurality of buyers exists according to information about a buyer who is not registered corresponding to the card information. (Paragraph [0029] “the customer swipes a credit card in a case where the customer is attempting to make a payment with the credit card or desires to make a payment using the payment service provider, at the merchant terminal (302). Once the credit card is determined to not be acceptable for use with the merchant, the merchant terminal transmits the personally identifiable information embedded on the credit card to the server (303). Note that […] the customer may be asked whether the customer wishes to create a new account (assuming the customer does not already have an account) to enable payment while still at the merchant terminal. For example, the store clerk may ask the customer, and if the customer agrees, the clerk may enter an acceptance through the merchant terminal.”; Examiner notes the merchant terminal prompts the clerk to designate information.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Ellis is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 19 and 20:
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 19 and 20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 9 and 10, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 19-20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 9 and 10, respectively.
Additionally, in regard to claim 19, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 4 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “providing…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Additionally, in regard to claim 20, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 6 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “providing…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628