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 .
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2, 7, 10 and 15 filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17 are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17 have been examined.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 05/27/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim objections
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 has overcome the previous objections. Accordingly, the previous objections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 has overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant contends that under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and the claim does not recite the concept of “money transfer” because the claim recites a specific technical protocol for secure, device-to-device wallet interaction and claim 1 has been amended to further clarify this specific technical protocol, and claim 1 now recites a precise sequence of local validation against a stored list, a state-machine transition (inactive to active) that acts as a technological gate, and a timed user-entry confirmation.. Also, applicant contends that under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim integrates the concept into a practical application because the amended limitations, “locally-stored list of valid wallet applications,” and “setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active…”, and “a timer period,” and is of the opinion that these limitations are not mere generic computer instructions but a specific technical implementation that improves the functioning of the mobile device in a limited connectivity environment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the amended claim 1, as representative, recites “receiving a message from a second [entity] including information identifying a second wallet…on the second [entity];” “confirming the validity of the second wallet…by determining that the information identifying the second [wallet] matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet[s]…;” “setting a status of the first wallet…from inactive to active in response to confirming the validity of the second wallet…;” “transmitting, to the second [entity], an indication that a status of the first wallet…has been set to be active;” “receiving a message from the second [entity] having a code and an amount of value to be transferred;” “confirming that a code entered by a user into the first [entity] matches the code received from the second [entity];” and “increasing a balance of the first wallet…by the amount of value within a timer period,” which, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity“ grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP §2106.04 (a)) because the claim recites is a process of processing money transfer with verification including receiving and checking payor information, verifying information of money transfer with validation, and updating account balance. Additionally, the claim recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, the limitations, “confirming the validity…by determining that the information identifying the second wallet…matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet[s]…” “setting a status of the first wallet…from inactive to active in response to confirming the validity of the second wallet…” and “confirming that a code entered by a user…matches the code received…within a timer period,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, characterize an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, which falls within the “mention processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claim is abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim such as “a first mobile device,” “a first wallet application,” “a second device,” and “a second wallet application,” “wallet applications,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the additional elements of “setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B, viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus is not patent eligible.
With respect to applicant’s remarks about the claim integrating the concept not a practical application because of local wallet validation with added term, “locally-stored list of valid wallet applications” in the amended limitations, “confirming…by determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications”, and technological gating via state control with added limitations, “setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active…”, as well as timed user confirmed with the added term, “a timer period,” in the step of confirming a user-entered code matching a received code, Examiner notes, however, that these limitations involve security check of data validation against a locally-stored list, and confirmation by matching codes within a timer period, which continues reciting the abstract idea of money transfer with verification. Moreover, the amended claim does not recite how the locally-stored list, status transition, time improves mobile-device or computer functionality. The claim describes a result-oriented description of a business process implemented on a computer and does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Regarding applicant’s item a. (REMARKS, page 10), applicant is of the opinion that the Hanson reference (US 11,775,955B1) fails to teach or suggest a payee device performing peer to peer value transfer wallet-to-wallet protocol with a wallet-to-wallet protocol because Hanson’s operation flow relies on a provider computing system and financial institutions to process transfers rather than a local wallet-to-wallet protocol. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0018] of applicant’s specification (PGPub 2025/0285114A1) discloses “FIG. 1 is a high-level block diagram of a system 100 according to some embodiments of the present invention. As shown, the system 100 includes several entities that may be involved in a value transfer transaction pursuant to the present invention, including a payor device 110, a payee device 120 as well as a network 130, a funding service provider 150 and a wallet service provider 140…In some situations, such as when value is loaded or withdrawn from a device 110, 120 a network 130 and one or more funding service provider services 150 may be involved. Further, in some situations, such as when a device 110, 120 requires and update of data or other information, a network 130 and one or more wallet service provider services 140 may be involved in a transaction.” Furthermore, application specification does not disclose the “wallet-to-wallet protocol.” Therefore, the Hanson reference teaches a peer-to-peer payment between two mobile wallet applications on two mobile devices (3:36-40). See details of 103 obviousness analysis under 103 rejections below.
Regarding items d. and e., applicant states “The McMillen reference (and other references cited in the Office Action) fails to teach or suggest this element because its "activation code" is used for a different purpose and context: adding an additional authorized user to a shared primary payment account (McMillen paragraph [0004] and paragraph [0016]). McMillen does not disclose a payee in a transaction receiving a code and amount from a payer and then matching a user-entered code to that received code to increase a wallet balance.” And, applicant states “The Ranzini reference (and other references cited in the Office Action) fails to teach or suggest this element because it times a different event. As noted in the § 103 Analysis, the Office Action characterizes Ranzini as teaching "receiving a confirmation ... within a timer period," which is a timer on a network message. This is not the same as the claimed limitation requiring the user to enter the code into the first mobile device within a timer period to finalize the transaction.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1, as a representative claim, recites “confirming that a code entered by a user into the first mobile device matches the code received from the second mobile device within a timer period.” The claim does not explicitly recite what a user-entered code is. Therefore, McMillen (US 2012/0136732A1), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, teaches the payee device (‘first device’) confirming that a code entered by a user into the payee device (‘first device’) (Fig. 5c, item 79, ¶¶39) matches the code received from the payor’s device (‘second device’) (Fig. 4g; ¶¶34). Ranzini discloses a timer period set by a sender (‘payor’) for a code entered by a user (‘payee’) matching the code sent by a sender (‘payor’) (¶¶55, 57-58, claims 129/133/137). McMillen and Ranzini render obvious.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the amended claims 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1, 3-6, 8 are directed to a method (i.e. process), claims 9, 11-14, 16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. manufacture), and claim 17 is directed to a mobile device (i.e. machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17:
Step 2A Prong One
The claims recite (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of money transfer with verification. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A computerized method to operate a first mobile device having a first wallet application to act as a payee in a transaction, the method performed by the first mobile device, comprising:
receiving a message from a second mobile device including information identifying a second wallet application on the second mobile device;
confirming the validity of the second wallet application by determining that the information identifying the second application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications;
setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active in response to confirming the validity of the second wallet application;
transmitting, to the second mobile device, an indication that a status of the first wallet application has been set to be active;
receiving a message from the second mobile device having a code and an amount of value to be transferred;
confirming that a code entered by a user into the first mobile device matches the code received from the second mobile device; and
increasing a balance of the first wallet application by the amount of value within a timer period.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite a commercia or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process of processing money transfer with verification including receiving and checking payor information, verifying information of money transfer with validation, and updating account balance, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, the limitations, “confirming the validity of the second wallet…by determining that the information identifying the second wallet…matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications,” “setting a status of the first wallet…from inactive to active in response to confirming the validity of the second wallet…” and “confirming that a code entered by a user…matches the code received…within a timer period,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, characterize an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, which falls within the “mention processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim is still abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a first mobile device,” “a first wallet application,” “a second device,” and “a second wallet application,” “wallet applications,” as well as “a computerized method” recited in claim 1, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions” and “at least mobile processor of the first mobile device” recited in claim 9, “a communication interface configured to communicate with a second mobile device via a short of medium range communication protocol; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a mobile wallet application comprising executable instructions; and a processor, when executing the mobile wallet application, configured to…” recited in claim 17, merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the additional elements of “setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims: 3-6, 8, 11-14, 16
Claims 3 and 11 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
establishing a communication session with the second mobile device over a short or medium range communication protocol.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer with verification. The non-underlined additional elements of “establishing a communication session with the second mobile device over a short or medium range communication protocol”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 12 recite characteristics of the communication protocol. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of money transfer with verification. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 13 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein receiving a message from the second mobile device further includes receiving hash of the information identifying the second wallet application.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer with verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 14 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein confirming the validity of the second wallet application further comprises:
generating, by the first mobile device using the first wallet application, a hash of the information identifying the second wallet application; and
confirming a validity of the second wallet application by confirming that (i) the generated hash matches the received hash, and (ii) the generated hash is in a list of hashes stored on the mobile device, wherein the list of hashes includes the unique hash for each of a plurality of wallet applications in a payment system and wherein the list of hashes is provided to the first mobile device from a wallet service provider.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer with verification. The non-underlined additional elements of “the plurality of wallet applications in a payment system” and “a wallet service provider”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
finalizing the transaction by causing a balance of the second wallet application to be reduced by the amount of value.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer with verification. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US 11,775,955B1 (“Hanson”)) in view of McMillen et al. (US 2012/0136732A1 (“McMillen”)) in further view of Samuelsson et al. (US 12,067,555B2 (“Samuelsson”)), Ranzini et al. (US 2006/0277144A1 (“Ranzini”)) and von Behren et al. (US 8,646,059B1 (“von Behren”)).
Per Claims 1, 9 and 17: Hanson discloses a computerized method to operate a first mobile device having a first wallet application to act as a payee in a transaction, the method performed by the first mobile device (Fig. 1, item 108; 7:12-21), comprising:
receiving a message from a second mobile device (Fig. 1, item 106) including information identifying a second wallet application on the second mobile device; (Fig. 1, Fig. 7, Fig. 10; 24:31-52, 28:3-20)
confirming the validity of the second wallet application; (16:24-34, 22:4-10)
transmitting, to the second mobile device, an indication that a status of the first wallet application has been set to be active; (16:24-34)
receiving a message from the second mobile device having [information] and an amount of value to be transferred; (Fig. 2, item 230, Fig. 10; 13:62-14:1, 28:3-10)…
[updating] a balance of the first wallet application by the amount of value. (7:12-26)
Additionally, per claim 9, Hanson further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions for use in operating a first mobile device having a first wallet application to act as a payee in a transaction, which, when executed by at least one processor of the first mobile device, cause the at least one processor to…( Fig. 1, item 108; 6:23-43)
Additionally, per claim 17, Hanson further discloses a mobile device, comprising: (Fig. 1, item 108; 6:23-43, 7:12-15)
a communication interface configured to communicate with a second mobile device via a short or medium range communication protocol; (Fig. 1, item 114; 6:23-43)
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a mobile wallet application comprising executable instructions; and (Fig. 1, item 128; 6:23-43, 7:27-31)
a processor, when executing the mobile wallet application, configured to: (Fig. 1, item 126; 6:23-43)
Hanson discloses receiving a message from the second mobile device having information and an amount of value to be transferred (Fig. 2, item 230, Fig. 10; 13:62-14:1, 28:3-10). Hanson does not explicitly disclose a code. Nor does Hanson disclose confirming that a code entered by a user into the first mobile device matches the code received from the second mobile device.
McMillen discloses the first device (‘a payee device’) receiving a code from a second device (‘payer device’) (Fig. 1, items 3a/3b, Fig. 4g; ¶¶34) and confirming that a code entered by a user into the first mobile device matches the code received from the second mobile device (Fig. 5c; ¶¶38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hanson to incorporate the teachings of confirming that a code entered by a user into the first mobile device matches the code received from the second mobile device, as disclosed in McMillen, to enable more efficient management of an electronic wallet on a mobile device (McMillen: ¶1).
Hanson discloses updating a balance of the first wallet application by the amount of value (7:12-26). Hanson does not explicitly disclose increasing the balance.
Samuelsson discloses the payee device increasing a balance of the first wallet application by the amount of value (Fig. 2A, item P2; 22:17-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hanson in view of McMillen to incorporate the teachings of increasing a balance of the wallet application of the payee device by the amount of value, as disclosed in Samuelsson, to provide improvements for digital payments between payers and payees that are physically proximate to each other (Samuelsson: 1:11-12).
Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson does not explicitly disclose a timer period for authentication (i.e. the code is entered by the user matching the received code from another device).
Ranzini discloses a timer period set by a sender (‘payor’) for a code entered by a user (‘payee’) matching the code sent by a sender (‘payor’) (¶¶55, 57-58, claims 129/133/137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson to incorporate the teachings of access to value transfer based on a code entered by a user (‘payee’) matching the code sent by a sender (‘payor’) within a time period established by a sender (‘payor’), as disclosed in Ranzini, for secure electronic fund transfers (Ranzini: ¶2).
Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson and Ranzini does not explicitly disclose:
…determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications.
setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active in response to confirming the validity of the second wallet application;
von Behren discloses:
…determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications. (Fig. 2, item 212/224; 7:36-42, 8:38-49)
setting a status of the first wallet application from inactive to active in response to confirming the validity of the second wallet application; (9:21-27, 16:23-41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson and Ranzini to incorporate the teachings of determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications, as disclosed in Hayes, for enabling secure peer to peer mobile wallet communications (Hayes: 4:9-10).
Per claims 3 and 11: Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini and von Behren discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Hanson further discloses:
establishing a communication session with the second mobile device over a short or medium range communication protocol. (Fig. 1, items 106/108; 6:5-22)
Per claims 4 and 12: Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini and von Behren discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 11.
Hanson further discloses:
wherein the communication protocol is at least one of: Bluetooth, NFC, and WiFi. (Fig. 1, items 106/108; 6:5-22)
Per claims 8 and 16: Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini and von Behren all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Hanson discloses:
finalizing the transaction by causing a balance of the second wallet application to be reduced by the amount of value. (27:43-49)
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini and von Behren as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 10,652,223B1 (“Hayes”)).
Per claims 5 and 13: Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini and von Behren does not explicitly disclose:
receiving hash of the information identifying the second wallet application.
Hayes further discloses:
receiving a received hash of the information identifying the second wallet application.(11:16-18, 11:63-12:21, 12:65-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini and von Behren to incorporate the teachings of receiving a received hash of the information identifying the second wallet application, as disclosed in Hayes, for enabling secure peer to peer mobile wallet communications (Hayes: 4:9-10).
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini, von Behren and Hayes as applied to claims 5 and 13, and further in view of Grassadonia et al. (US 9,934,502B1 (“Grassadonia”)).
Per claims 6 and 14: Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini, von Behren and Hayes discloses all the limitations of claims 5 and 12.
Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini, von Behren and Hayes does not explicitly teach disclose:
generating, by the first mobile device using the first wallet application, a hash of the information identifying the second wallet application; and
confirming a validity of the second wallet application by confirming that (i) the generated hash matches the received hash, and (ii) the generated hash is in a list of hashes stored on the mobile device, wherein the list of hashes includes the unique hash for each of a plurality of wallet applications in a payment system and wherein the list of hashes is provided to the first mobile device from a wallet service provider.
Grassadonia discloses:
generating, by the first mobile device using the first wallet application, a hash of the information identifying the second wallet application; and (7:36-40, 18:13-17)
confirming a validity of the second wallet application by confirming that (i) the generated hash matches the received hash (7:14-18, 10:16-24, 18:48-50, 19:50-20:3, 20:40-46), and (ii) the generated hash is in a list of hashes stored on the mobile device, wherein the list of hashes includes the unique hash for each of the plurality of wallet applications in a payment system and wherein the list of hashes is provided to the first mobile device from a wallet service provider. (7:14-18, 10:16-24, 18:48-50, 19:50-20:3, 20:40-46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson, Ranzini, von Behren and Hayes to incorporate the teachings of authentication techniques for confirming a validity of a recipient for payment transfer, as disclosed in Grassadonia, to provide a significantly faster means of authenticating users (Grassadonia: 5:13-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dunne (US 2018/0068293A1) teaches offline peer-to-peer in-app transaction between a payer device and a payee device using tokens provisioned with time to live.
VUDATHU (US 2023/0306414A1) teaches use of a hashed device mobile identifier.
Mizunuma (US 2013/0238903A1) teaches wallet data structure.
Lakshmanan (US 2021/0065173A1) teaches secure payments using a mobile wallet application.
Grassadonia (US 10,783,517B2) teaches requesting and receiving from recipient for fund transfer.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights