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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 13/310,127 filed on December 2, 2011, now U.S. Patent 9710812, application of U.S. application no. 15/653,223 filed on July 07, 2017, now U.S. Patent 11250426, and U.S. application no. 17/563,316 filed on December 28, 2021, now U.S. Patent 12299682. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, comprising claims 9-21 and the newly added claims 22-28 in the reply file on February 02, 2026is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic linking claim. Applicant cancelled claims 1-8.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 25, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on April 10, 2025 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“second profile”
“online platform”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “detecting a payment is to be made by a first user to a second user via an online platform connecting a plurality of users using a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of users”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure and was unable to find support for this limitation. For example, Specification [0029] indicates “Thus, authorization tokens that are stored in the database by the social network payment gateway device may be checked each time a payment request is received”. However, the Applicant’s disclosure does not have support for "detecting a payment is to be made".
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 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a method/process (Claims 8-22). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 9 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 9 recites:
A method, comprising:
detecting a payment is to be made by a first user to a second user via an online platform connecting a plurality of users using a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of users, wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second 000identifier of the second user having a second profile;
determining an authorization token and a first payment provider identifier corresponding to the first identifier from a database associated with the online platform, wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the online platform;
accessing the first profile based on the authorization token;
determining the second profile based on the second identifier from a profile connection to the first profile;
obtaining a second payment provider identifier associated with the second user based on the second profile and the authorization token;
processing the payment from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on the first payment provider identifier and the second payment provider identifier;
generating a payment alert associated with the payment processed using a messaging format for a messaging protocol of the online platform; and
transmitting the payment alert adapted for the online platform in a message to at least one of the first user or the second user using the messaging protocol.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of facilitating a payment transaction between users of an online platform and notifying them of the payment. The claims achieves this by detecting a payment between users, determining identifiers and authorization tokens, accessing profiles, obtaining payment providers identifiers, processing the payment and generating and sending a payment alert. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., transferring funds).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 9 recite the additional element of an online platform and a database. Independent claim 16 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium, an online platform and a database. Independent claim 22 recites the additional elements of a system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, an online platform and a database. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, an online platform and a database in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do 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 element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, an online platform and a database), an electronic display, a user interface and electronic wallets) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 9, 16 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 10-15, 17-21 and 23-28 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10, 17 and 23 further refine the abstract idea by describing the first and second profiles. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11, 18 and 24 further refine the abstract idea by transmitting the payment notification. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12, 19 and 25 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that the permission granted by the first user further permits access to the second profile via the first profile or messaging data shared by the second user with the first user on the online platform. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 13, 20 and 26 further refine the abstract idea by detecting a selection of a contact list and presenting an identifier. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14, 21 and 27 further refine the abstract idea by describing the detecting step. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 15 and 28 further refine the abstract idea by describing the payment and indicating that the permission granted by the first user permits the payment processor to post information on the online platform on behalf of the first user, and wherein the payment alert is posted by the payment processor based on the permission describing the detecting step. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 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.
Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15-18, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortina et al (US 2011/0137789 A1), in view of Bangah et al. (US 2012/0150734 A1), in view of Templeton (US 2007/0150414A1).
Regarding claims 9, 16 and 22 Kortina disclose:
Claim 9: A method, comprising:
Claim 16: A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1) to cause a machine to perform operations comprising:
Claim 22: A system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions form the non-transitory memory (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1) to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
detecting a payment is to be made by a first user to a second user via an online platform connecting a plurality of users using a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of users, wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second identifier of the second user having a second profile; (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1a; Fig. 1d; [0046-0050]; [0084] a payment is to be made by a first user to a second user (i.e., user A agrees to pay user B $5.00 for utilities) is detected via an online platform connecting a plurality of users using a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of users (i.e., within the trust based transaction system) wherein the payment is associated with a first identifier of the first user having a first profile and a second identifier of the second user having a second profile (i.e., unique identifier of user A and unique identifier of user B; the trust based transaction system updates the user profile of each user in the user profile database 225).)
determining an authorization token and an identifier corresponding to the first identifier from a database associated with the online platform, wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the online platform; (See at least Kortina, Fig. 1a; [0034]; [0040];[0090]; Kortina disclose determining an authorization token (i.e., financial trust link) and a first identifier corresponding to the first identifier from a database associated with the online platform (i.e., The financial trust graph is a sum-total of data stored in the system database ( or databases) about individuals, their relationships to other entities, and their relationships to each other via trusted financial links), wherein the authorization token is associated with a permission granted by the first user that allows an access to the first profile of the first user with the online platform (i.e., user 1 creates 151a trusted financial link to user 2.).
accessing the first profile based on the authorization token; (See at least Kortina, [0057]; [0069]; one user, e.g., user A, trusts a specific other user, e.g., User B. Accordingly, user B will have the right to withdraw funds from user A, within the limits set by user A and/or the system user B (who has been trusted by user A) is asked if she would like to reciprocate that trust).)
determining the second profile based on the second identifier from a profile connection to the first profile; (See at least Kortina, [0042]; [0054]; [0057]; [0090]; [0100] In one embodiment, a resulting action is that the system will establish the database record within the user profile database 225 that reflects one user, e.g., user A, trusts a specific other user, e.g., User B. viewing a profile page 165 of another user, e.g., user B, user A sees some basic information and a list of actions within the trust based financial system. The basic information includes identifying the user profile, e.g., user B 167, a short biography of user B 168, and identities verified 169 by the system.);
generating a payment alert associated with the payment processed using a messaging format (See at least Kortina, [0074] User B and user A are notified via various digital communication channels that the transaction has been canceled. In another embodiment, user A is notified via various mechanisms that user B has requested that funds be moved from user A to user Band funds are instantly moved from user A to user B.)
transmitting the payment alert (See at least Kortina, [0074] User B and user A are notified via various digital communication channels that the transaction has been canceled. In another embodiment, user A is notified via various mechanisms that user B has requested that funds be moved from user A to user Band funds are instantly moved from user A to user B.)
Kortina disclose If user A's financial institutions allow the transaction to go through, the remaining difference up to the total amount requested by user B is removed from the financial institution, credited to user B's account, and then the total amount requested by user B is moved from user A's account to user B's account. Kortina [0072]. However, Kortina does not explicitly disclose obtaining [a second payment provider] identifier associated with the second user based on the second profile and the authorization token; processing the payment from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on the [first payment provider] identifier and the second [payment provider] identifier; that the generated payment alert associated with the payment processed is using a messaging format for a messaging protocol of the online platform; and the payment alert adapted for the online platform in a message to at least one of the first user or the second user using the messaging protocol.
Bangah, on the other hand teaches:
obtaining identifier associated with the second user based on the second profile and the authorization token; (See at least Bangah, [0019]; The value exchange system account is associated to a user's SNS account by the user's SNS account identifier, and makes use of the SNS account identifiers of a first user to enable the communication of a value exchange transaction with a second user.)
processing the payment from a first account associated with the first user to a second account associated with the second user based on the [first payment provider] identifier and the second identifier; (See at least Bangah, [0042]; [0058]; [0086]. In this embodiment of the invention, the computer-implemented value exchange system still makes use of the SNS account identifier of each user to enable the communication of value exchange transactions between the users, through a use of a universally compatible.)
generating a payment alert associated with the payment processed using a messaging format for a messaging protocol of the online platform; and (See at least Bangah, [0042] a notification means for computer generation of notifications of the value exchange transactions between the first and second users, and for the electronic transmission of such notifications)
transmitting the payment alert adapted for the online platform in a message to at least one of the first user or the second user using the messaging protocol. (See at least Bangah, [0042]; [0069] The value exchange system sends a notification of the value exchange transaction to the second user's SNS account; The notification confirming that a value exchange transaction has been successfully concluded, is typically an electronic message utilizing a SNS 's messaging function, and may additionally or alternatively be in the form of a computer generated message which is electronically transmitted, such as an e-mail or a short messaging service text message, to name a few. Other forms of electronic message generation and transmission may be envisioned by persons skilled in the art. Although such a notification may thus be external of the SNS, this is ancillary to the transaction itself which is conducted within the SNS login sessions of the parties to the transaction.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kortina's invention where transactions are trusted and managed within a social network and include Bangah's in order to extend the capabilities of a trust based transaction system across different social networks, thereby enhancing its functionality. And to enable the communication of value exchange transactions between the users. Bangah, [0014].
The combination of Kortina and Bangah does not explicitly disclose the use of payment provider identifier to perform a transfer between users.
Templeton, on the other hand teaches the use of payment provider identifier to perform a transfer between users. (See at least Templeton, [0087]; This identifier may be referred to as the SPID or Service Provider Identifier. In one embodiment, the SPID may be used in conjunction with the intermediary account associations to direct a payment transaction to the desired destination. For example, AT&T may have an identifier ‘123’. If an AT&T payment is to be made, the intermediary account number (generally embossed on the payment card) would be provided along with the identifier ‘123’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Templeton’s teachings in order to provide standardization and efficiency.
Regarding claims 10, 17 and 23: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose wherein the first and second profiles are both with the online platform, and wherein the second profile for the second user is determined based on at least one of a message between the first profile and the second profile or a data post connecting the first and second profiles. (See at least Kortina Fig. 1a; [0027; The system creates a user profile for each user in the network of users. The trust based transaction system automatically establishes 420 a trusted relationship from user A to the newly established user, e.g., user B. To confirm this, a confirmation message is transmitted 422 to both user A and now new user B.)
Regarding claims 12, 19 and 25: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose wherein the permission granted by the first user further permits access to the second profile via the first profile or messaging data shared by the second user with the first user on the online platform. (See at least Kortina, [0090] In one embodiment, the trust based transactions system enables users to have access to this data to evaluate the trustworthiness of a given user. For example, in one embodiment, a user, e.g., user A, can navigate to profile page of another user, e.g., user B, and have rendered on a screen of the computer system 100, various statistics and facts. The statistics and facts allow user A to evaluate an individual creditworthiness of user B.)
Regarding claims 13, 20 and 26: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose detecting a selection of a contact list of the first user that is associated with the online platform; and (See at least Kortina, [0060]; can then select 326 from the list based on the displayed results the user/users they would like to trust by clicking a button entitled 'trust this person'.)
responsive to the selection, causing a contact identifier of the second user in the contact
list to be presented with an option to process the payment. (See at least Kortina, [0046]; In this example, user A is using a computing system 100 that is a mobile phone. In a first instance, user A is not yet in the system, but proceeds to pay user B using a short message service (SMS) message. Specifically, user A agrees to pay user B $5.00 for utilities 191a.)
Regarding claims 15 and 28: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9 and the medium of claim 16. The combination further disclose wherein the payment is processed by a payment processor, wherein the permission granted by the first user permits the payment processor to post information on the online platform on behalf of the first user, and wherein the payment alert is posted by the payment processor based on the permission. (See at least Kortina, [0029];[0031];[0066] FIG. 1 shows a diagrammatic representation of a machine in the example form of a computer system 100 within which instructions 124 ( e.g., software) for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein may be executed.; In this example, Steve then establishes 526 a trusted financial link to Bill (an asynchronous trust; A message can be sent
to Bill and/or Steve if the transaction is rejected.)
Claim 11, 18 and 24 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kortina, Bangah and Templeton as applied to claim 9, 16 and 22 above, and further in view of Osterwalder (US 2011/0173443 A1), in view of Ryali et al (US20120015630 A1)
Regarding claims 11, 18 and 24: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose: accessing a message adapter at a gateway device for the online platform, wherein the message adapter is configured to adapt the payment alert to the messaging protocol; and authenticating with the gateway device using the authorization token, wherein the authenticating authorizes the message adapter to adapt the payment alert for the online platform, and wherein the transmitting the payment alert further uses the message adapter via the gateway device.
Osterwalder, on the other hand teaches:
accessing a message adapter for the online platform, wherein the message adapter is configured to adapt the payment alert to the messaging protocol; and (See at least Osterwalder, [0023]; In an embodiment the adapter 114 verifies the message protocol, and reformats the incoming message into a common internal message (IM) having an Internal Message Format (IMF) that is different from the format, or protocol, of the incoming message. Reformatting or translating the message into an IM allows the SES 10 to handle any of the TCP/IP message protocols in a simple and secure manner.)
and wherein the transmitting the payment alert further uses the message adapter. (See at least Osterwalder, [0023]; In an embodiment the adapter 114 verifies the message protocol, and reformats the incoming message into a common internal message (IM) having an Internal Message Format (IMF) that is different from the format, or protocol, of the incoming message. Reformatting or translating the message into an IM allows the SES 10 to handle any of the TCP/IP message protocols in a simple and secure manner.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Osterwalder teachings in order to provide the users with the ability of keep using their social network to receive notifications from a different one, and doing this the user would not need to leave his social network to received said notifications.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a gateway device and accessing a message adapter at a gateway device; authenticating with the gateway device using the authorization token, wherein the authenticating authorizes the message adapter to adapt the payment alert for the online platform, the transmitting the payment alert the gateway device.
Ryali, on the other hand, teaches a gateway device and accessing a message adapter at a gateway device; authenticating with the gateway device using the authorization token, wherein the authenticating authorizes the message adapter to adapt the payment alert for the online platform, the transmitting the payment alert the gateway device. (See at least Ryali, Abs.; [0006]; [0020] a gateway of Alert notification system configured to facilitate authentication and authorization of alert originator applications, acquisition of software tokens corresponding to alert originator applications, validation of software tokens and validation of alert requests. The alert notification module further comprises a profiler configured to receive validated alert request from the gateway, to acquire software templates corresponding to alert messages and to customize alert messages based on the templates.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Ryali’s teachings in order to facilitate communication between devices.
Claim 14, 21 and 27 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kortina, Bangah and Templeton as applied to claim 9, 16 and 22 above, and further in view of Ryali et al (US20120015630 A1)
Regarding claims 14, 21 and 27: The combination of Kortina, Bangah and Templeton disclose the method of claim 9, medium of claim 16 and the system of claim 22. The combination further disclose wherein the detecting the payment is performed using an application (See at least Kortina Fig. 1a; [0036] In one embodiment, verification includes third-party social and communications identity of a user 140a-c.)
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a gateway device that are in communication with one or more devices of the online platform.
Ryali, on the other hand, teaches a gateway device that are in communication with one or more devices of the online platform. (See at least Ryali [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Ryali’s teachings in order to facilitate communication between devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ravi (US 20050137978 A1)A bill is presented and payment of the presented bill is requested over a communications network having a first network site associated with a bill payment entity, a second network site, which is different than the first network site, associated with a user, and a third network site, which is different than the first and the second network sites, associated with a bill presentment entity, which is different than the bill payment entity. Abs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights