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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 19/100,572 entitled "SETTLEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON DIGITAL CURRENCY WALLET SYSTEM, AND WALLET SYSTEM" originally filed on February 2, 2025, with claims 1-17 and 33-35 pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets :
umbrella-structured as meaning hierarchal payment accounts, such as parent-child or employer-employee or primary-subsidiary financial payment accounts;
umbrella-top as parent, employer, or primary financial payment account;
umbrella-bottom as child, employee, or subsidiary financial payment account
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 17, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the recited claims do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. The structural limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and are not statutory. The claims recite several modules. Mediums not claimed as embodied in non-transitory computer-readable media are functional descriptive material per se and are considered to be software per se, which is not statutory.
As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Here, Applicant has claimed a system defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software or files, lacking storage on a non-transitory medium, which does not enable any underlying functionality to occur. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include non-transitory hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Additionally, any amendments must be fully supported by the specification. Thus the entire claim presents itself as software per se, which is not a statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave are not directed to any of the statutory categories. The claims recite the term “medium” that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes transitory signals. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility. Examiner notes the Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1) reads:
[0130] It is to be noted that the computer-readable medium according to the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium or any combination of both of the above…. According to the present application, the computer-readable signal medium may include data signals propagated in a baseband or as part of a carrier wave, in which computer-readable program codes are carried. Such propagated data signals may be in a variety of forms, including but not limited to electromagnetic signals, optical signals, or any suitable combination of the above. The computer-readable signal medium may also be any computer-readable medium other than the computer-readable storage medium, and the computer-readable medium may send, propagate, or transmit a program for use by or in conjunction with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The program codes included by the computer-readable medium may be transmitted via any suitable medium, including but not limited to: wireless, wired, fiber optic cables, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the above.
Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Thus the entire claim presents itself as signals per se, which is not a statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-17 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-17 and 33-34 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 35 is NOT directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, nor composition of matter. Therefore, it falls within a non-statutory category of invention. (Step 1: NO). See MPEP 2104. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claims are further analyzed under Steps 2A and 2B.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A settlement method based on a digital currency wallet system, wherein the method is applied to an umbrella-structured wallet operating institution, and comprises:
opening an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet;
receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
and settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more settlement requests, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “opening an umbrella-top wallet” and “receiving a collected digital currency” and “settling a fund” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites NO additional elements.
Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1) reads:
[0122] “The terminal devices 901, 902 and 903 may be various electronic devices that have displays and support web browsing, including but not limited to smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers, etc.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2-7: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 8:
“smart contract”: merely applying computer distributed ledger smart contract technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 9-16: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. For example, the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1) reads:
[0122] “The terminal devices 901, 902 and 903 may be various electronic devices that have displays and support web browsing, including but not limited to smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers, etc.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 17 recites:
“A settlement system based on a digital currency wallet system, wherein the system is applied to an umbrella-structured wallet operating institution, and comprises:
a wallet opening subsystem configured to open an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet;
a collection top-to-bottom fund transferring subsystem configured to receive a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet, and allocate the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets; and
a settlement subsystem configured to settle a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more settlement requests, wherein the settled fund comprises a top- to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top- to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “open an umbrella-top wallet” and “receive a collected digital currency” and “settling a fund” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites NO additional elements. Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 33 recites:
“A digital currency wallet system adopting an umbrella-structured wallet structure, wherein the umbrella-structured wallet structure comprises an umbrella-top wallet and umbrella- bottom wallets, and one umbrella-top wallet corresponds to one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
the umbrella-top wallet is configured to receive a collected digital currency and send the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets by top-to-bottom fund transferring; and
the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets are configured to receive the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency, wherein after one or more settlement requests are made, the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency is settled to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in a form of digital currency and/or an account fund.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “receive a collected digital currency” and “the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency is settled to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in a form of digital currency and/or an account fund” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites NO additional elements. Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 34 recites:
“…to implement following actions:
opening an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet;
receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
and settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more settlement requests, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “opening an umbrella-top wallet” and “receiving a collected digital currency” and “settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 34 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 35 recites:
“…implements following actions:
opening an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet;
receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
and settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more settlement requests, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency..”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “opening an umbrella-top wallet” and “receiving a collected digital currency” and “settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A computer-readable medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 16, 17, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tumminaro ("MOBILE PERSON-TO-PERSON PAYMENT SYSTEM", U.S. Publication Number: 20070255653 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Tumminaro teaches,
A settlement method based on a digital currency wallet system, wherein the method is applied to an umbrella-structured wallet operating institution,
(Tumminaro [0016] The transaction processor 3402 submits the transaction to the credit card interchange (a network of financial entities that communicate to manage the processing, clearing, and settlement of credit card transactions)
Tumminaro [0859] The interface between mobile devices and Electronic Wallet Platform
Tumminaro [0003] relate generally to electronic currency transfer systems
Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account )
and comprises: opening an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet;
(Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account)
receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
(Tumminaro [0399] Obopay sends a message to Diamond initiating a $300 P2P from Obopay CC-Master A/C to U1's debit card. User is immediately credited with funds.
Tumminaro [0124] access an account such as a debit account.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
and settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more settlement requests, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.
(Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0003] relate generally to electronic currency transfer systems)
Regarding Claim 2,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the opening an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet comprises: opening the umbrella-top wallet for storing a digital currency in response to an umbrella-top wallet opening request made by an umbrella-top entity;
(Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0124] The account may also be a stored value account
Tumminaro [0541] Registration can occur at any bank partner or on-line at a web page accessed over the Internet as indicated at 5102. The registration process enables the recipient to open a prefunded (using the transferred funds) debit account. This process is similar to opening any other bank account
Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account
Tumminaro [0256] As more users register and use of the system, the users will help spread news and bring in additional users. For example, in order for a nonmember user to receive the money, the nonmember is encouraged or required to sign up as a member.)
and opening the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets for storing a digital currency and corresponding to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more umbrella-bottom wallet opening requests authorized by the one or more umbrella-bottom entities and made by the umbrella-top entity.
(Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0256] in order for a nonmember user to receive the money, the nonmember is encouraged or required to sign up as a member.)
Regarding Claim 3,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: withdrawing the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella- bottom wallets to a digital currency wallet or a bank settlement account bound to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets.
(Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0541] enables the recipient to open a prefunded (using the transferred funds) debit account. This process is similar to opening any other bank account
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Regarding Claim 4,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: in response to the one or more settlement requests, converting the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets back to a specific account of a payment institution associated with the umbrella-top entity;
(Tumminaro [0210] selecting and identifying parties to a transaction....An identifying code....that is translated to a specific account
Tumminaro [0574] there is a three-level security blanket that authenticates the user (PIN), the phone number (detected by caller ID and linked to a specific account)
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account)
and uniformly
(Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.)
settling an account amount in the specific account corresponding to the digital currency converted back and a pending settlement amount of an electronic payment received by the specific account to a fund account of the one or more umbrella-bottom entities.
(Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0321] In the event user A has sufficient funds, and user B accepts the transaction, the amount is debited from user A's account and credited to user B's account.
Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction)
Regarding Claim 5,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the converting the top-to- bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets back to a specific account of a payment institution associated with the umbrella-top entity comprises: sending the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella- bottom wallets to an internal wallet of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0321] In the event user A has sufficient funds, and user B accepts the transaction, the amount is debited from user A's account and credited to user B's account.
Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction
Tumminaro [0545] At a back end processing portion of a system of the invention, a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.
Tumminaro [0252] Users are typically associated with specific financial partners, such as a particular bank. In the mobile payment system, each user will have a user profile that has settings for that user. These parameters include ... linked accounts)
and converting a digital currency in the internal wallet back to an internal account of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution, and then transferring, to the specific account, an account amount in the internal account corresponding to the digital currency converted back from the internal wallet.
(Tumminaro [0545] At a back end processing portion of a system of the invention, a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0291] The payment sent to user B is debited from A's account and it is held in suspense pending user B's enrollment.
Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer
Tumminaro [0294] 8. After user B successfully enrolls, user B's account is automatically funded with user A's payment.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: in response to the one or more settlement requests, converting the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets back to an internal account of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0472] The contribution is refundable
Tumminaro [0395] the transaction can be reversed
Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0545] a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.)
and uniformly settling an account amount
(Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.)
in the internal account corresponding to a digital currency converted back and a pending settlement amount of an electronic payment received by the internal account to a fund account of the one or more umbrella-bottom entities.
(Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0321] In the event user A has sufficient funds, and user B accepts the transaction, the amount is debited from user A's account and credited to user B's account.
Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction)
Regarding Claim 7,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: in response to the one or more settlement requests, transferring the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets to an internal wallet of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0545] At a back end processing portion of a system of the invention, a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
and uniformly settling an amount of a digital currency received by the internal wallet,
(Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.)
and a pending settlement amount of an electronic payment correspondingly converted out from the internal wallet to a digital currency wallet bound to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets.
(Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account is in accordance with any convenient parameter or group of parameters
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Regarding Claim 9,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
in response to a cancellation request sent by an umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution, canceling the umbrella-top wallet or the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets requested to be canceled.
(Tumminaro [0344] user A is provided with the option of being able to cancel the payment before user B accepts it.
Tumminaro [0366] A is permitted to cancel payment and B will be appropriately notified)
Regarding Claim 10,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein when the umbrella-top wallet is requested to be canceled, and before canceling the umbrella-top wallet, determining that all the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet have been canceled and that there is no digital currency balance in the umbrella-top wallet as well as no corresponding pending transactions.
(Tumminaro [0344] user A is provided with the option of being able to cancel the payment before user B accepts it.
Tumminaro [0366] A is permitted to cancel payment and B will be appropriately notified
Tumminaro [0318] In the event that user A's account lacks sufficient funds for the financial transaction, the system sends an electronic notification
Tumminaro [0701] If any problems do arise with the payment (i.e., insufficient funds) both the account holder and the target payee will be notified.
Tumminaro [0490] If a preauthorized account is depleted and the account holder has not timely replenished the account, the telephone number may be placed on a “red list” and prohibited from future use of the service.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets comprises: top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to a corresponding umbrella-bottom wallet based on collection information and business elements, wherein the collection information comprises a collection amount and an identifier of an umbrella-bottom wallet associated with the collection amount; and the business elements are pre-agreed between an umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet and the umbrella-bottom entities, comprising at least one of the following: an allocation cycle, a commission ratio, return rules, freight and insurance collection rules, and advance fund repayment rules.
(Tumminaro [0312] Negotiation...User A requests to send the funds using a suitable identifier for user B. User B is notified of the pending payment ... user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.
Tumminaro [0316] user A sends funds to user B via a unique identifier or ID. The unique identifier may be...include phone numbers...e-mail address, social security number, account number, license plate number, instant messenger username, and others.)
Regarding Claim 12,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets comprises: when the collected digital currency is top-to-bottom fund transferred according to a pre- agreed commission ratio, top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency into the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet.
(Tumminaro [0312] Negotiation...User A requests to send the funds using a suitable identifier for user B. User B is notified of the pending payment ... user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0029] An embodiment of the system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.)
Regarding Claim 16,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
maintaining relevant information of the corresponding umbrella-top wallet or umbrella-bottom wallet in response to a maintenance request for the umbrella-top wallet or the umbrella-bottom wallet, the relevant information comprising information of a wallet owner.
(Tumminaro [0950] requestDate•String value that is the audit time stamp for the balance request
Tumminaro [1014] AuditEvent event
Tumminaro [1017 - Table] AuditEvent ...accountId....memberId )
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 33,
Tumminaro teaches,
A digital currency wallet system adopting an umbrella-structured wallet structure, wherein the umbrella-structured wallet structure comprises an umbrella-top wallet and umbrella- bottom wallets, and one umbrella-top wallet corresponds to one or more umbrella-bottom wallets; the umbrella-top wallet is configured to receive a collected digital currency and send the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets by top-to-bottom fund transferring; and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets are configured to receive the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency, wherein after one or more settlement requests are made, the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency is settled to one or more umbrella-bottom entities in a form of digital currency and/or an account fund.
(Tumminaro [0003] relate generally to electronic currency transfer systems
Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.
Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Claim 34 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumminaro ("MOBILE PERSON-TO-PERSON PAYMENT SYSTEM", U.S. Publication Number: 20070255653 A1) in view of Tedesco (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATIC ASSET TRANSFER USING SMART CONTRACTS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220284419 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the one or more settlement requests are initiated in any of the following ways: initiated by the one or more umbrella-bottom entities through an umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet,
(Tumminaro [0233] an account holder associated with mobile device 401 initiates a transfer
Tumminaro [0273] initiating a $300 person-to-person payment
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account is in accordance with any convenient parameter or group of parameters
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0273] The MPS sends a $300 ACH transfer to the MSP credit card master account to replenish the funds.)
initiated by the umbrella-top entity with an authorization of the one or more umbrella-bottom entities, initiated by the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution according to an agreement
(Tumminaro [0399] initiating a $300 P2P from Obopay CC-Master A/C to U1's debit card. User is immediately credited with funds.
Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A.)
Tumminaro does not teach initiated by a smart contract.
Tedesco teaches,
initiated by a smart contract.
(Tedesco [0001] payment protocols, smart contracts, and blockchain systems
Tedesco [Abstract] for automatically transferring assets based on a smart contract)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the smart contract teachings of Tedesco having “payment protocols, smart contracts, and blockchain systems.” (Tedesco [0001]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. smart contract) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “for automatically transferring assets based on a smart contract” Tedesco [Abstract])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumminaro ("MOBILE PERSON-TO-PERSON PAYMENT SYSTEM", U.S. Publication Number: 20070255653 A1) in view of Li (“A KIND OF RESOURCE BACKING METHOD AND DEVICE”, Chinese Publication Number: CN 109003069 A).
Regarding Claim 13,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
the umbrella-top wallet
(Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Tumminaro does not teach in response to a refund request, returning refunded funds … along an original route.
(Li [page 2] receiving the client end after the refund request, determining the original payment according to the refund request path, the original payment path as target refund path for resource fallback. For example, when the user consumption payment by bank card payment, after the user applies for refund, the consumption money back to the bank, but for example, when the user consumption payment using the payment balance payment after the user applies for refund, the consumption money is returned to the AliPay balance.
Li [page 5] the refund request, first path of funds corresponding to the original payment account for refund operation, and determining the refund result based on the original payment route the refund operation, wherein, the refund may result is a chargeback is successful)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the transaction route teachings of Li having an “original payment path.” (Li [page 2]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. transaction route) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “original payment path as target refund path” (Li [page 2])
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumminaro, and Li and further view of Tedesco.
Regarding Claim 14,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Tumminaro does not teach receiving advance funds supplemented to the umbrella-top wallet by the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet when a digital currency balance of the umbrella- top wallet is less than the refunded funds.
Tedesco teaches,
receiving advance funds supplemented to the umbrella-top wallet by the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet when a digital currency balance of the umbrella- top wallet is less than the refunded funds.
(Tedesco [0050] In other example aspects, a user could configure a profile so that other wallets could be linked to the user wallet and the escrow wallet, wherein the third-party wallets may pay for the user's service (e.g., parents paying for child's service use, school paying for student's service use, etc.). In such a scenario, the transfer of assets among wallets may involve a third-party wallet that may transfer funds to an escrow wallet on behalf of the user.
Tedesco [0058] When the use reaches a certain threshold, for example, a smart contract rule may be triggered at 526, whereby assets are automatically transferred from an escrow wallet to the service provider wallet .... if the escrow wallet has insufficient funds to pay )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the escrow teachings of Tedesco where “funds may be placed into an escrow wallet.” (Tedesco [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. escrow) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The system may receive a trigger event, which may cause a transfer of assets from the escrow wallet” Tedesco [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 15,
Tumminaro teaches the financial settlement of Claim 14 as described earlier.
Tumminaro does not teach wherein before the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets, the method further comprises: offsetting the advance funds when the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet replenishes the umbrella-top wallet with the advance funds.
Tedesco teaches,
wherein before the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets, the method further comprises: offsetting the advance funds when the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet replenishes the umbrella-top wallet with the advance funds.
(Tedesco [0050] In other example aspects, a user could configure a profile so that other wallets could be linked to the user wallet and the escrow wallet, wherein the third-party wallets may pay for the user's service (e.g., parents paying for child's service use, school paying for student's service use, etc.). In such a scenario, the transfer of assets among wallets may involve a third-party wallet that may transfer funds to an escrow wallet on behalf of the user.
Tedesco [0058] When the use reaches a certain threshold, for example, a smart contract rule may be triggered at 526, whereby assets are automatically transferred from an escrow wallet to the service provider wallet .... if the escrow wallet has insufficient funds to pay )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the escrow teachings of Tedesco where “funds may be placed into an escrow wallet.” (Tedesco [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. escrow) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The system may receive a trigger event, which may cause a transfer of assets from the escrow wallet” Tedesco [Abstract])
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rajaraman (“Systems And Methods For Managing Receipts For Payment Account Transactions”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20180247281 A1) proposes managing receipts associated with payment account transactions are disclosed. One exemplary method includes intercepting, by a computing device, an authorization message associated with a transaction involving a payment account and a merchant. The method also includes accessing, by the computing device, a profile for the payment account where the profile includes a vault location in a receipt vault data structure specific to the payment account, and appending, by the computing device, the vault location to the authorization message, whereby the merchant is permitted to deposit a receipt for the transaction at the vault location in the receipt vault data structure..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10am to 4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695