DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2025 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, the language “…receiving a received hash of the information…” should be “…receiving a
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 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 1-8 are directed to a method (i.e. process), claims 9-16 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. 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;
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.
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 receiving and checking payor information, verifying amount of money transfer, and updating account balance, which is a commercial or legal interactions.
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,” 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. 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: 2-8, 10-16
Claims 2 and 10 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
confirming the validity of the second wallet application further comprises:
determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer. 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 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. 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. 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 a received hash of the information identifying the second wallet application.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer. 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 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.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer. 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 7 and 15 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 that a code entered by a user into the first mobile device matches the code received from the second mobile device further comprises:
confirming that the code is entered by the user into the first mobile device within a timer period.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of money transfer. 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.
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. 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 §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 5, confirming…each of the plurality of wallet applications…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, “the plurality of wallet applications.”
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”)).
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)
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).
Per claims 3 and 11: Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson 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 and Samuelsson 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 and Samuelsson 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 2, 5, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 10,652,223B1 (“Hayes”)).
Per claims 2, and 10: Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications.
Hayes discloses:
determining that the information identifying the second wallet application matches information in a locally-stored list of valid wallet applications. (Fig. 14, item 14170; 7:34-58, 14:53-56, 14:65-15:6)
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 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 5 and 13: Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Hanson in view of McMillen does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a received 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 and Samuelsson 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 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 and Hayes discloses all the limitations of claims 5 and 12.
Hanson in view of McMillen, Samuelsson 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 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.
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 and Samuelsson 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).
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Ranzini et al. (US 2006/0277144A1 (“Ranzini”)).
Per claims 7 and 15: Hanson in view of McMillen and Samuelsson discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
McMillen discloses:
confirming that the code is entered by the user into the first mobile device (¶¶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 in view of McMillen and Samuelsson 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 in view of McMillen and Samuelsson does not explicitly teach disclose a timer period for confirming that the code is entered by the user into the first mobile device.
Ranzini receiving a confirmation from the second wallet application within a timer period. (¶¶55, 57-58)
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 eceiving a confirmation from the second wallet application within a timer period, as disclosed in Ranzini, for secure electronic fund transfers (Ranzini: ¶2).
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.
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