DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 6/4/26.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18, 24, 26-27, 29-30 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18, 24, 26-27, 29-30 are rejected as set forth below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18, 24, 26-27, 29-30 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 § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18, 24, 26-27, 29-30 are 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.
As per claims 1, 16, 26, 27, the limitation “generating a unique transaction ID using the unique recipient transaction ID" fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of generating the unique transaction ID using the unique recipient transaction ID. First, the Specification discloses that the unique transaction ID is sent, not generated, using the unique recipient transaction ID ([0051]). Second, the Specification does not provide any detail on how the unique transaction ID is generated by using the unique recipient transaction ID as an input. See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”).
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18, 24, 26-27, 29-30 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 16, 26, 27, the limitations “the unique transaction ID being associated with transaction information for assigning the one or more assets from the first digital account to the second digital account” (and other subsequent limitations that include the unique transaction ID) render the scope of the claim indefinite because the underlined term’s antecedent basis is unclear. Specifically, there are two prior instances of a unique transaction ID: the unique recipient transaction ID and the unique transaction ID.
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18, 24, 26-27, 29-30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070022058 to Labrou in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070255652 to Tumminaro and United States Patent Application Publication No. 20070260558 to Look.
As per claims 1, 16, 26, 27, Labrou teaches:
A method of payment processing, comprising: initiating an assignment of one or more assets from a first digital account to a second digital account by generating a unique transaction identification ID, the unique transaction ID being associated with transaction information for assigning the one or more assets from the first digital account to the second digital account, wherein the generated unique transaction ID is specific to the assignment between the first digital account and second digital account wherein the unique transaction ID includes numbers, letters, or a combination of numbers and letters; providing the unique transaction ID in an encrypted format to a payment process system to facilitate the payment process system to verify the transaction information; ([0108]-[0110], “Step 500. The merchant (cashier POS 103) sends a UPTF message to the STS 120 requesting a transaction ID and receives a transaction ID (TID) reply from the STS 120. The merchant displays the details of the transaction on a monitor (as in a normal store). This information may include the amount, a transaction ID and/or a POS ID to identify the merchant. According to an aspect of the embodiments, if the views 402, 404 do not contain a device ID, the transaction ID (since both the mobile device 104 and the POS 103 point to the transaction identifier) can be usable to bind the views 402, 404 for STS 120 authentication and verification. Step 502. The customer launches the mobile POS application 109 and enters the transaction ID and/or the POS ID as obtained from the merchant in operation 500. The customer enters the PIN. The customer selects an account. The mobile POS application 109 sends a UPTF message to the STS 120 using a cellular network 211, called the C-View 402. The encrypted portion 406 contains the transaction ID, the account, the time stamp and may or may not contain the POS ID. Step 504. The STS 120 receives the messages from the merchant 103 and the client 104. The STS 120 decodes the messages and verifies the identity of the parties. The STS authorizes the transaction.”; [0048], “TID: transaction ID, a unique identification number assigned to an agreement, which is maintained by the STS 120 to identify corresponding UPTF agreement views 402, 404.”; [0033], “In FIG. 2, the UPTF SAS protocol encrypts/decrypts a transaction message using a symmetric, secret-key 352.sub.c,m approach where the secret key 352.sub.c,m is producible only by an individual party's mobile device 104 and a trusted third party (e.g., implemented as STS 120) and without transmission of the secret key among the parties. In other words, the UPTF SAS provides an implicit user authentication, because decryption by a trusted third party, such as STS 120, of a sending party's encrypted message, authenticates the sending party.”)
Furthermore, Applicant attempts to further limit the method by describing characteristics of the unique transaction ID. However, this is representative of non-functional descriptive material as characteristics of the unique transaction ID does not result in a functional relationship with the invention and therefore cannot be used to differentiate Applicant's invention from the prior art invention. See MPEP 2111.05; In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.”). Specifically, the step of providing the unique transaction ID to a payment process system is carried out the same way regardless of what the unique transaction ID is associated with: there is no evidence that the association of the unique transaction ID with specific transaction data changes the efficiency or the accuracy or any other characteristic of the providing. See Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (“Here, the descriptive material (SEQ ID NOs) recited in the claims is not functional material like the data structures in Lowry. There is no evidence that SEQ ID NOs 9-1008 functionally affect the process of comparing a target sequence to a database by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic of the comparison. Rather, the SEQ ID NOs are merely information being manipulated by a computer; the SEQ ID NOs are inputs used by a computer program that calculates the degree of similarity between a target sequence and each of the sequences in a database. The specific SEQ ID NOs recited in the claims do not affect how the method of the prior art is performed – the method is carried out the same way regardless of which specific sequences are included in the database (emphasis added).”)
receiving, from the payment process system, confirmation that the one or more assets have been assigned, wherein the unique transaction ID is unique to the assignment and is non-reusable for a subsequent transaction associated with the first digital account or the second digital account. ([0110], “The STS authorizes the transaction. The STS 120 sends receipt messages to the merchant using its preferred connection 220 and to the customer over the cellular network 211.”; [0048], “TID: transaction ID, a unique identification number assigned to an agreement, which is maintained by the STS 120 to identify corresponding UPTF agreement views 402, 404. For example, a purchase transaction identifier uniquely identifying a particular purchase.”)
Labrou does not explicitly teach, but Tumminaro teaches:
initializing an electronic payment function on a user device; generating a unique transaction ID by a processor on the user device and responsive to initializing the electronic payment function; ([0032], “The method may include where the first screen further provides a third option to request payment from another. The method may include where the second screen has a third option which upon selection by the user provides the user access to an address book from which the user may select an entry to use as the target phone number. The transaction information may include a sequence number generated by the mobile phone.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Tumminaro to the known invention of Labrou would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such payment transaction features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to generate the unique transaction ID by a processor on the user device and responsive to initializing the electronic payment function results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the user device can confirm the legitimacy of the transaction ID, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Labrou as modified does not explicitly teach, but Look teaches:
inputting a unique recipient transaction identification (ID) associated with a second digital account at the user device; ([0017], “The application also preferably comprises a pull down list of potential payees to identify the correct payee. If this were the first transaction with a given payee the payee identifier could be added manually or by a two-way communications method (wired or wireless).”)
generating a unique transaction ID using the unique recipient transaction ID; ([0017], “The executable on the mobile phone generates the secure two-dimensional code, preferably as an electronic signal, containing the desired transaction information or data to be sent to the payee or directly to the financial institution or both. The payee's data will be in the code sent by the user and included in the original coded image graphic.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Look to the known invention of Labrou as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such payment transaction features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include the steps of inputting a unique recipient transaction identification (ID) associated with a second digital account at the user device and generating a unique transaction ID using the unique recipient transaction ID results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the unique transaction ID is securely generated using a recipient transaction ID verified by the user that is initiating the transaction, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
As per claims 2, 17, Labrou teaches:
wherein the one or more assets to be assigned comprise one or more of: currency, gift card balance, prepaid balance, loyalty points, and coupons. ([0034], “In FIG. 2, after the STS 120 extracts the mobile device POS transaction data from the transaction views received from the parties and the STS 120 verifies the received mobile device POS transaction data, further actions may be needed, which, for example, may be realized by the trusted third party 120 interacting with financial institutions associated with the user payer 102 and the provider (merchant) payee 106 to cause the transfer of the specified funds between the user payer 102 and the provider payee 106.”)
As per claims 3, 18, Labrou teaches:
wherein the transaction information comprises an amount of the one or more assets to be assigned. ([0034])
As per claim 9, Labrou teaches:
wherein the second digital account is associated with a merchant account. ([0034])
As per claim 10, Labrou teaches:
wherein the first digital account is associated with a first electronic device and the second digital account is associated with a second electronic device. ([0021], “According to the embodiments, a user 102 uses a mobile device 104, such as (without limitation) a mobile phone or a PDA, with wireless communication capability, to transact with a Point of Sale (POS) device 103, such as (without limitation) a cash register, of a provider 106, for example, to purchase an item or receive a service, etc.”)
As per claim 11, Labrou teaches:
wherein the first or second electronic device is a smart mobile device. ([0021])
As per claim 12, Labrou teaches:
wherein the method is operated over a wired or wireless communications network. ([0021], “The mobile device 104 can be any mobile wireless communication computing device or mobile radio computing device, including, without limitation, a mobile phone, that wirelessly communicates (e.g., wireless Internet or mobile phone network 211) with other mobile devices 104a-n, with a secure transaction server 120, or with a POS 103, or any combinations thereof. According to an aspect of the embodiments, the mobile device 104 has one or more short-range communication methods 210 implemented therein, for example (without limitation), image, audio, and/or RF, to communicate with the POS 103.”)
As per claims 13, 29, Labrou teaches:
wherein the transaction information comprises a device ID associated with the first digital account. ([0043]-[0044], “FIG. 3 shows the internal structure and the generation process of a mobile device POS authenticable transaction view messages 402, 404 (i.e., UPTF SAS authenticable transaction messages among a mobile device 104, a POS 103 and an STS 120). The identifiers used in FIG. 3 are explained below: DIDc: device ID, a unique identifier for the mobile POS 104 (the user consumer (c) or source transaction party).”)
As per claims 14, 24, 30, Labrou teaches:
wherein the confirmation is indicative of one or more of: a transferred asset amount, or one or more transferred asset types. ([0110])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20080052182 to Marshall discloses a system and method to accept and settle transaction payments for an unbanked consumer. A consumer initiates a transaction with a merchant, and the merchant may transmit transaction information to a central processing unit using an initiating processing unit. The central processing unit may generate a unique transaction identifier or the merchant may generate the unique transaction identifier which complies with the systems rules and notifies the central processing unit of the transaction information and unique transaction identifier. The system may provide the merchant and consumer the nearest payment processing unit. At the payment processing unit, the consumer presents the unique transaction identifier, which is transmitted to the central processing unit for validation. The consumer may also validate the transaction information. The consumer makes payment at the payment processing unit, and the payment information is transmitted to the central processing unit. The system may generate a confirmation receipt for the consumer, and the central processing unit notifies the merchant of payment by the consumer. The merchant may then fulfill the transaction. The system remits the payment to the merchant.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights