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 .
The Application number 19/205,517 filed on 5/12/2025 has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, 11 and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention. The claims 1-3, 8, 11 and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,089 contain every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 10,318,957 hereinafter Phillips) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 2020/0259827 hereinafter Shaffer).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses a first device, comprising:
one or more memories (FIG. 2-3); and
one or more processors (FIG. 2-3), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
generate an optical code for authentication (FIG. 1A-C, 45 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-39, col. 6, lines 29-49, col. 7, lines 1-7, col. 8, lines 38-48; i.e. generating verification token for verifying the customer upon the customer requests a service);
receive a notification that a second device, associated with a service location, has authenticated based on processing the optical code (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 43-49, col. 14, lines 15-67; i.e. receiving a verification confirmation that the service agent or the provider user device has verified the requestor user device wherein the service agent accesses the service based on the requestor information in the verification token);
establish, based on the notification, an application session between the first device and the second device, wherein the application session is related to an application on the first device (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 43-49, col. 14, lines 15-67; i.e. enabling the peer-to-peer transactions, providing the requested service between the requestor device and the agent or provider device);
provide a plurality of functions, associated with the application (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 1-49; i.e. providing functions associated with the application including location-based transactions or facilitating transactions involving products and/or services that requested by the nearly users), that include locked functions and unlocked functions;
Phillips does not explicitly discloses said functions include locked functions and unlocked functions; unlock, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and provide, to the second device and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed.
However, Shaffer discloses said functions include locked functions and unlocked functions; unlock, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and provide, to the second device and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed (FIG. 6-12, 18-23, ¶ [0174]-[0177], [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Phillips and Shaffer in order to prevent improper use or abuse of private information and also provide intelligent end-user verification without sacrificing the security of the private information (Shaffer, ¶ [0050]-[0057).
Regarding claim 2, Phillips in view of Shaffer discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the application session provides first information on the first device, wherein the application session provides second information on the second device, and wherein the second device includes masked portions of the first information (Phillips, col. 3, lines 13-49; Shaffer, ¶ [0099]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips in view of Shaffer discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the operation on the second device requires first information from the first device, and wherein the first information cannot be entered on the second device (Phillips, col. 4, lines 13-49; Shaffer, FIG. 15E-F).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips in view of Shaffer discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the application session is maintained based on at least one of a status associated with the first device or a location associated with the first device (Phillips, col. 4, lines 13-49; Shaffer, ¶ [0059]-[0066], [0226]).
Regarding claim 5, Phillips in view of Shaffer discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: encrypt first information; and provide the encrypted first information to the second device (Phillips, col. 3, lines 13-49; Shaffer, ¶ [0099]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 6, Phillips in view of Shaffer discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the unlocked function is related to financial services (Phillips, col. 2, lines 44-67; Shaffer, ¶ [0174]-[0177], [0191]).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips in view of Shaffer discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the application session is maintained based on monitoring the first device (Phillips, col. 12, lines 1-35; Shaffer, ¶ [0118]-0126]).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first device, cause the first device to:
receive a notification that a second device, associated with a service location, has authenticated based on processing an optical code (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 43-49, col. 14, lines 15-67; i.e. receiving a verification confirmation that the service agent or the provider user device has verified the requestor user device wherein the service agent accesses the service based on the requestor information in the verification token);
establish, based on the notification, an application session between the first device and the second device, wherein the application session is related to an application on the first device (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 43-49, col. 14, lines 15-67; i.e. enabling the peer-to-peer transactions, providing the requested service between the requestor device and the agent or provider device);
provide a plurality of functions, associated with the application (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 1-49; i.e. providing functions associated with the application including location-based transactions or facilitating transactions involving products and/or services that requested by the nearly users), that include locked functions and unlocked functions,
Phillips does not explicitly discloses said functions include locked functions and unlocked functions; unlock, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and provide, to the second device and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed.
However, Shaffer discloses said functions include locked functions and unlocked functions; unlock, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and provide, to the second device and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed (FIG. 6-12, 18-23, ¶ [0174]-[0177], [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Phillips and Shaffer in order to prevent improper use or abuse of private information and also provide intelligent end-user verification without sacrificing the security of the private information (Shaffer, ¶ [0050]-[0057).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, Phillips discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device, a notification that a second device, associated with a service location, has authenticated based on processing an optical code (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 43-49, col. 14, lines 15-67; i.e. receiving a verification confirmation that the service agent or the provider user device has verified the requestor user device wherein the service agent accesses the service based on the requestor information in the verification token);
establishing, based on the notification, an application session between the first device and the second device, wherein the application session is related to an application on the first device (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 43-49, col. 14, lines 15-67; i.e. enabling the peer-to-peer transactions, providing the requested service between the requestor device and the agent or provider device);
providing, by the first device, a plurality of functions, associated with the application (FIG. 1C, 4-5 & 6C, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 4, lines 38-50, col. 6, lines 1-49; i.e. providing functions associated with the application including location-based transactions or facilitating transactions involving products and/or services that requested by the nearly users), that include locked functions and unlocked functions;
unlocking, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and
providing, by the first device, to the second device, and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed.
Phillips does not explicitly discloses include locked functions and unlocked functions; unlocking, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and providing, by the first device, to the second device, and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed.
However, Shaffer discloses that include locked functions and unlocked functions; unlocking, based on receiving the notification and based on one or more services available at the service location, one or more locked functions of the plurality of functions, wherein an unlocked function of the plurality of functions requires a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device in order to perform a process related to the unlocked function; and providing, by the first device, to the second device, and via the application session, an instruction that causes an operation related to the unlocked function to be performed (FIG. 6-12, 18-23, ¶ [0174]-[0177], [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Phillips and Shaffer in order to prevent improper use or abuse of private information and also provide intelligent end-user verification without sacrificing the security of the private information (Shaffer, ¶ [0050]-[0057).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights