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 .
This application is a CON of 17/180,273 02/19/2021 ABN
17/180,273 is a DIV of 15/791,576 10/24/2017 ABN
15/791,576 is a CIP of 15/227,779 08/03/2016 ABN
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingham (Pub. No.: US 2015/0028099), in view of Sawin (Pub. No.: US 2002/0066783).
As per claim 1, Lingham teaches a greeting card (see paragraph 0016, “A vendor 105 may sell physical cards 140, e.g., greeting cards, which include a barcode 145”, comprising:
a first panel that includes a QR code that is scannable by a first computing device and that is configured to, upon being scanned using the first computing device (see FIG. 2, item 210; see paragraph 0014-0017, a sender “may capture an image of the barcode 145 with a device, such as a mobile device 115a. The barcode 145 may include a barcode-based identifier associated with the physical card 140”; also see paragraph 0024-0026 and 0030, “Though reference is often made herein to the barcode or QR code as the identifier of the physical card, one will recognize that this is merely for purposes of explanation and that in some embodiment a separate identifier for a physical or electronic may be encoded in a portion of the barcode, stored at a separate location reference by a portion of the barcode, a graphical marking, etc.”; see paragraph 0032, “The physical greeting card may then be provided to the recipient…The recipient may, for example, use a mobile device to scan the barcode, which may open up a web page in which the recipient can view the gift cards they have been given by the sender”), cause the first computing device to begin a gift-transfer process comprising:
(1) presenting a gift-transfer application if it is available to be presented via the first computing device or presenting an option to download the gift-transfer application if it is not available to be presented via the first computing device (see paragraph 0017, “the barcode may be associated with a uniform resource locator (URL) link and the mobile device 115a may include software that opens a browser application directed to the URL”; see paragraph 0037, “an application on the mobile devices of the sender and recipient may be used to recognize and redeem the barcode” and “On the recipient’s device, another instantiation of the application may be installed, which may take steps to deliver the electronic gift card(s) to a mobile wallet, e.g., on the recipient’s mobile device”, prior art implies that if the application is not available on the computing device, an instantiation of the application may be installed),
wherein the gift-transfer application facilitates interacting with a gift-transfer service running on one or more servers remote from the first computing device to perform a process (see paragraph 0022, 0026, 0030, 0031, 0033, especially paragraph 0037, “an application on the mobile devices of the sender and recipient may be used to recognize and redeem the barcode…The application may also report the code and electronic card relation to the server”), comprising:
(2) determining a first user associated with a first copy of the gift-transfer application (see paragraph 0021, “The unlocking process may occur automatically in some embodiments when recipient 120 scans the barcode 145 with their personal device 115b. For example, the recipient’s identity may be confirmed based on the physical possession of the device 150b”; see paragraph 0037, “an application on the mobile devices of the sender and recipient may be used to recognize and redeem the barcode”);
(3) determining if a monetary value has been associated with the QR code (see FIG.2 and paragraph 0023-0027, when sender purchases a greeting card and scans a barcode physically located upon the card, the card does not have any monetary value associated with the barcode, and the sender is directed to a gift card selection interface to link monetary value to the barcode; see paragraph 0030, “The server may make a record of the selections, e.g., as entries in a relational database correlating a barcode value with a plurality of electronic gift cards and their corresponding metadata (monetary value, redemption deadline, etc.)”, relational database record can be retrieved to determine if a monetary value has been associated with a barcode; see paragraph 0032-0035, when the recipient receives the greeting card, the card already has monetary value associated with the barcode, and the recipient will be presented sender selected gift cards with monetary value when the recipient scans the barcode);
(4) if a monetary value has not been associated with the QR code, then receiving an indication of a designated recipient and a designated monetary value to be conveyed to the designated recipient and storing a first indication that the designated recipient
is to receive the designated monetary value (see paragraph 0027, “The interface may be a web page in which the sender can purchase gift cards intended for the recipient of that greeting card”, purchasing gift card to be linked to the greeting card is indicating a designated monetary value to be conveyed to the designated recipient”; see FIG. 2, item 235; see paragraph 0018-0019, “This database 175b may specify gift card selections 185b associated with a purchase, the monetary value of the cards, miscellaneous metadata, etc.”; see paragraph 0021, “the sender 110 may specify some identifying characteristic of he recipient’s 120 device or of the recipient 120…the sender 110 may specify a challenge question and an answer to pose to the recipient 120 when making the gift selection”; also see paragraph 0030, “The server may make a record of the selections, e.g., as entries in a relational database correlating a barcode value with a plurality of electronic gift cards and their corresponding metadata (monetary value, redemption deadline, etc.)”);
(5) if a monetary value has been associated with the QR code, determining if the first user is the designated recipient (see FIG. 2, item 260; see paragraph 0021, “the sender 110 may specify a challenge question and an answer to pose to the recipient 120 when making the gift selection. When the recipient correctly provides the answer, the gift may be unlocked”; see paragraph 0032, “The physical greeting card may then be provided to the recipient, who at block 260 may scan the barcode with their own device”)
(6) if the first user is the designated recipient, then enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value (see paragraph 0037, “On the recipient’s device, another instantiation of the application may be installed, which may take steps to deliver the electronic gift card(s) to a mobile wallet, e.g., on the recipient’s mobile device”); and
(7) if the first user is not the designated recipient, then indicating that the monetary value is not available (see paragraph 0021, “the sender 110 may specify a challenge question and an answer to pose to the recipient 120 when making the gift selection. When the recipient correctly provides the answer, the gift may be unlocked”; in other words, if the user is not the designated recipient, the gift values will be locked/unavailable; also see paragraph 0034-0035, “unlocking may occur without involving the sender, e.g., via a challenge and response to the recipient, or comparison of identifying information at the recipient’s device with information provided by the sender”, subsequently “the recipient may redeem the selected gift cards” ).
Examiner notes however, Lingham does not explicitly teach a first panel that includes a removable portion of material situated over a QR code.
Sawin teaches a first panel that includes a removable portion of material situated over a QR code (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include a first panel that includes a removable portion of material situated over a QR code. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 2, Lingham does not teach the removable portion of material comprises a scratch-off coating layered over the QR code.
Sawin teaches the removable portion of material comprises a scratch-off coating layered over the QR code (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include the removable portion of material comprises a scratch-off coating layered over the QR code. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 4, Lingham teaches comprising a second panel (see paragraph 0015-0016, one skilled in the art would know that greeting cards typically have at least two panes.). However Lingham does not teach wherein: the QR code is marked on the second panel; and the removable portion of material comprises a die-cut flap formed in the first panel and hingedly openable to reveal the QR code.
Sawin teaches the QR code is marked on the second panel; and the removable portion of material comprises a die-cut flap formed in the first panel and hingedly openable to reveal the QR code (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”, one skilled in the art would understand a die-cut flap covering a barcode is just an obvious variant of peel off substance concealing a barcode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include the QR code is marked on the second panel; and the removable portion of material comprises a die-cut flap formed in the first panel and hingedly openable to reveal the QR code. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 5, Lingham does not explicitly teach wherein the first panel is affixed to the second panel.
Sawin teaches the first panel is affixed to the second panel (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”, a peel off substance can be interpreted as a first panel attacked to a second pannel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include the first panel is affixed to the second panel. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 6, Lingham does not teach wherein the removable portion of material comprises a removable sheet attached to the first panel using a low-tack, pressure-sensitive adhesive.
Sawin teaches the removable portion of material comprises a removable sheet attached to the first panel using a low-tack, pressure-sensitive adhesive (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”, a peel off substance is the same as claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include the removable portion of material comprises a removable sheet attached to the first panel using a low-tack, pressure-sensitive adhesive. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 7, Lingham does not teach wherein the removable sheet is removable from the first panel without damaging a surface of the first panel.
Sawin teaches the removable sheet is removable from the first panel without damaging a surface of the first panel (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”, a peel off substance is the same as claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include the removable sheet is removable from the first panel without damaging a surface of the first panel. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 8, Lingham does not teach wherein the removable portion of material comprises a sheet of material attached to the greeting card along a perforated fold line and selectively detachable to expose the QR code.
Sawin teaches the removable portion of material comprises a sheet of material attached to the greeting card along a perforated fold line and selectively detachable to expose the QR code (see paragraph 0044, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”, one skilled in the art would understand the claimed feature is just an obvious variant of peel off substance concealing a barcode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Sawin to include the removable portion of material comprises a sheet of material attached to the greeting card along a perforated fold line and selectively detachable to expose the QR code. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., prevent QR code being scanned prior to sender purchase greeting card and associate monetary value to the QR code).
As per claim 11, Lingham teaches wherein the QR code represents a unique tag identifier that uniquely identifies a tag included as part of the greeting card (see paragraph 0016, “a portion of the barcode 145 may encode a number uniquely identifying the physical card 140”).
As per claim 12, Lingham teaches scanning the QR code causes a browser of the first computing device to navigate to a uniform resource identifier associated with the gift-transfer application (see paragraph 0017, “the barcode may be associated with a uniform resource locator (URL) link and the mobile device 115a may include software that opens a browser application directed to the URL”).
As per claim 13, Lingham teaches the first computing device comprises a mobile computing device (see paragraph 0016, 0025, 0032, “The recipient may, for example, use a mobile device to scan the barcode, which may open up a web page in which the recipient can view the gift cards they have been given by the sender”; also see paragraph 0037).
As per claim 14, Lingham teaches wherein the gift-transfer application comprises a mobile application executable by the mobile computing device (see paragraph 0017, “the barcode may be associated with a uniform resource locator (URL) link and the mobile device 115a may include software that opens a browser application directed to the URL”; see paragraph 0033 and 0037, “an application on the mobile devices of the sender and recipient may be used to recognize and redeem the barcode”).
As per claim 15, Lingham teaches presenting the option to download the gift-transfer application comprises presenting an option to download the mobile application from an online application store (see paragraph 0037, “an application on the mobile devices of the sender and recipient may be used to recognize and redeem the barcode” and “On the recipient’s device, another instantiation of the application may be installed, which may take steps to deliver the electronic gift card(s) to a mobile wallet, e.g., on the recipient’s mobile device”, prior art implies that if the application is not available on the computing device, an instantiation of the application may be installed).
As per claim 16, Lingham teaches wherein the gift-transfer service maintains a searchable record associated with the unique tag identifier, the searchable record storing: the designated monetary value; the designated recipient; and security information for controlling access to the designated monetary value (see paragraph 0018-0019 and 0030).
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingham (Pub. No.: US 2015/0028099), in view of Sawin (Pub. No.: US 2002/0066783), and Alroy et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0196787).
As per claim 3, Lingham does not teach a unique personal identification number matched to an identifier represented by the QR code, wherein the unique personal identification number is concealed by a second scratch-off coating.
Alroy teaches a unique personal identification number matched to an identifier represented by the QR code, wherein the unique personal identification number is concealed by a second scratch-off coating (see paragraph 0011, “The card 110 preferably has a unique number (PIN) associated therewith. Preferably the PIN is covered by a scratch-off surface, as is well known in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Alroy to include a unique personal identification number matched to an identifier represented by the QR code, wherein the unique personal identification number is concealed by a second scratch-off coating. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., providing a PIN that is concealed by a scratch-off coating) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., enhance security).
As per claim 19, Lingham does not teach wherein enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: receiving the unique personal identification number through the first copy of the gift-transfer application; verifying the unique personal identification number; and making the monetary value available in response to verifying the unique personal identification number.
Alroy teaches enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: receiving the unique personal identification number through the first copy of the gift-transfer application; verifying the unique personal identification number; and making the monetary value available in response to verifying the unique personal identification number (see paragraph 0011, “The card 110 preferably has a unique number (PIN) associated therewith. Preferably the PIN is covered by a scratch-off surface, as is well known in the art…The sender also provides the transfer processing center 120 with identification of the intended recipient 114 of the car’s value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Alroy to include enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: receiving the unique personal identification number through the first copy of the gift-transfer application; verifying the unique personal identification number; and making the monetary value available in response to verifying the unique personal identification number. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., providing monetary value to recipient by verifying PIN) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., enhance security).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingham (Pub. No.: US 2015/0028099), in view of Sawin (Pub. No.: US 2002/0066783), and Mayer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0210525).
As per claim 9, Lingham teaches further comprising an instruction sheet removably attached to the greeting card and bearing instructions for a gift sender to access the gift-transfer application (see paragraph 0015-0016, instructions are just words printed on paper, and as such this is a non-functional descriptive material).
Even if this feature carries patentable weight, it is well-known in the art. Mayer teaches an instruction sheet removably attached to the greeting card and bearing instructions for a gift sender to access the gift-transfer application (see FIG. 2, instruction is printed next to the barcode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Mayer to include an instruction sheet removably attached to the greeting card and bearing instructions for a gift sender to access the gift-transfer application. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., providing instruction to access application) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., allow new users to learn how to use the app).
As per claim 10, Lingham teaches the instruction sheet is attached to the greeting card along a perforated fold line; and the instructions direct the gift sender to access the gift-transfer application and select the designated monetary value (see paragraph 0015-0016, instructions are just words printed on paper, and as such this is a non-functional descriptive material).
Even if this feature carries patentable weight, it is well-known in the art. Mayer teaches the instruction sheet is attached to the greeting card along a perforated fold line; and the instructions direct the gift sender to access the gift-transfer application and select the designated monetary value (see FIG. 2, instruction is printed next to the barcode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Mayer to include the instruction sheet is attached to the greeting card along a perforated fold line; and the instructions direct the gift sender to access the gift-transfer application and select the designated monetary value. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., providing instruction to access application) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., allow new users to learn how to use the app).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingham (Pub. No.: US 2015/0028099), in view of Sawin (Pub. No.: US 2002/0066783), and Jain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0344981).
As per claim 17, Lingham does not teach wherein, if a monetary value has not been associated with the QR code, the process further comprises: receiving a financial-account identifier identifying a financial account to be debited for the designated monetary value; and transmitting a transaction-details communication identifying the financial account and the designated monetary value to a payment system.
Jain teaches receiving a financial-account identifier identifying a financial account to be debited for the designated monetary value; and transmitting a transaction-details communication identifying the financial account and the designated monetary value to a payment system (see paragraph 0042, “the system may allow the user to manually enter the account information…in the case of the funding source being a credit card or an account number and a routing number in the case of the funding source being a bank account”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Jain to include receiving a financial-account identifier identifying a financial account to be debited for the designated monetary value; and transmitting a transaction-details communication identifying the financial account and the designated monetary value to a payment system. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., receiving account information for funding source) to a known apparatus (i.e., greeting card with QR code for transferring gift value) ready to provide predictable results (i.e., let system know where to draw money from for the fund transfer).
As per claim 18, Lingham teaches wherein, after receiving confirmation of payment of the designated monetary value, the process further comprises: transmitting to the gift-transfer service a gift-creating communication identifying the designated monetary value and an identifier represented by the QR code; and causing the gift-transfer service to update a searchable record associated with the identifier to indicate that the designated monetary value has been associated with the QR code (see paragraph 0018-0019 and 0030).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingham (Pub. No.: US 2015/0028099), in view of Sawin (Pub. No.: US 2002/0066783), and Fargo et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0238410) and Hunt (Pub No.: US 2010/0010918).
As per claim 20, Lingham does not teach wherein enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: presenting a plurality of selectable merchant options, each selectable merchant option corresponding to an electronic gift card of a respective merchant; receiving a selection of one of the selectable merchant options; and causing the monetary value to be loaded onto the electronic gift card corresponding to the selected merchant option.
Fargo teaches enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: presenting a plurality of selectable merchant options, each selectable merchant option corresponding to an electronic gift card of a respective merchant; receiving a selection of one of the selectable merchant options; and causing the monetary value to be loaded onto the electronic gift card corresponding to the selected merchant option (see paragraph 0274, “The gift cards can be preselected by the Reward Creator or the recipients of the bounty or reward could have the option of selecting from a list of potential merchant gift cards or gift certificates”; see paragraph 0284, “The Electronic gift card splitter and Distributor 119 simplify the splitting of gift cards into smaller amounts and for cards by the same or different merchants” and “The gift card recipient then selects the merchant from which the recipient wants the gift card”; see paragraph 0285, “Each gift card recipient may then select the merchant from which the gift card is to be issued”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lingham with teaching from Fargo to include enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: presenting a plurality of selectable merchant options, each selectable merchant option corresponding to an electronic gift card of a respective merchant; receiving a selection of one of the selectable merchant options; and causing the monetary value to be loaded onto the electronic gift card corresponding to the selected merchant option. Lingham and Fargo are combinable, because they both disclose a system for transferring gifts to recipients. Moreover, Fargo teaches the reward creator/sender or the recipient can select the merchant from which the gift card is to be issued, thus the two implementations are interchangeable without modification of the system. Furthermore, Fargo clearly teaches recipient interacts with a graphical user interface to win a gift (see FIG. 5E), and the prior art does not disclose any other way for the recipient to interact with the system. Thus, it is implied the recipient selects a merchant from a list via a graphical user interface. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., allowing recipient to choose where to spend the gift card amount) to a known a method (i.e., transferring gift) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., make gift more personalized).
To further supports the argument, Examiner cites Hunt. Hunt teaches enabling the designated recipient to receive the monetary value comprises: presenting a plurality of selectable merchant options, each selectable merchant option corresponding to an electronic gift card of a respective merchant; receiving a selection of one of the selectable merchant options; and causing the monetary value to be loaded onto the electronic gift card corresponding to the selected merchant option (see paragraph 41, “which enables a gift card recipient to redeem the gift card by selecting one or more items at multi-merchant website…a multi-merchant website is a single website that enables a shopper to search for, browser, select purchase and redeem items of merchandise or services from a plurality of merchants”; the multi-merchant website is a graphical user interface which allows recipient of gift card to select a merchant from a list of plurality of merchants to redeem the gift card value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Lingham and Fargo with teaching from Hunt to include wherein a selection of a plurality of merchants will later be determined by a recipient of said greeting card; causing a user interface to be presented on said second device that is useable to collect gift-allocation information by presenting a plurality of value-allocation links that are useable to apportion said digital gift among one or more merchants who were not designated by the sender, wherein each value-allocation link respectively corresponds to one of said one or more merchants; receiving said gift-allocation information from said user interface; and interacting with a payment system to facilitate loading funds onto one or more merchant gift cards consistent with said gift-allocation information. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., allowing recipient to choose where to spend the gift card amount) to a known a method (i.e., transferring gift) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., make gift more personalized).
Response to Remarks
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 07/27/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments with regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
II(A). Lingham teaches determining a first user associated with a first copy of the gift transfer application
Applicant argued Lingham does not disclose that determining the identity of a user associated with a particular copy of the application. Examiner disagrees and points out that paragraph 0021 of Lingham teaches, “The unlocking process may occur automatically in some embodiments when recipient 120 scans the barcode 145 with their personal device 115b. For example, the recipient’s identity may be confirmed based on the physical possession of the device 150b”. The paragraph also teaches specific methods, such as prompting user to answer security questions, to identify user associated with the copy of the application. Examiner also points to paragraph 0037 of Lingham, which teaches an application on the mobile devices of the sender and recipient may be used to scan and recognize the barcode printed on the greeting card. Clearly a copy of the gift-transfer application is installed on each user’s mobile device, thus the user’s copy of the application is tied to the user’s mobile device. Determining the identity of the user associated with the mobile device is the same as determining the identity of the user associated with the copy of the application.
II(B). Lingham teaches the claimed designated recipient and monetary-value relationship
Applicant argued that Lingham does not teach receiving an indication of a designated recipient and a designated monetary value when no monetary value has yet been associated with QR code. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0024-0027 of Lingham teaches a sender making purchase of a greeting card, and upon scanning a barcode physically located on the greeting card using an application on the sender’s mobile device (here it is implied that the greeting card is brand new and has never been associated with a recipient or monetary value), the sender is presented with a gift card selection interface where the recipient and the monetary value may be entered. Paragraph 0021 of Lingham teaches “the sender 110 may specify some identifying characteristic of the recipient’s 120 device or the recipient”. Paragraph 0018 of Lingham teaches “Controls 160 may be used by the sender 110 to add or more gift cards and to specify monetary values”. Paragraph 0019 further teaches the recipient and monetary value relationship is recorded in a database 175b. Clearly, Lingham teaches receiving an indication of a designated recipient and a designated monetary value when no monetary value has yet been associated with QR code.
II(C). Lingham teaches determining whether the first user is the recipient
Applicant argued that Lingham does not teach “the claimed sequence of determining a user associated with a first application copy; retrieving a previously stored designated recipient; and determining whether the application-associated user is that designated recipient”. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0019 teaches the recipient and monetary value relationship is recorded in a database 175b. Paragraph 0021 of Lingham teaches when the recipient scans the barcode on the greeting card, the recipient’s identity may be confirmed based on the physical possession of the device, where the sender has specified some identifying characteristic of the recipient’s device or the recipient. One skilled in the art would know many existing methods for doing identity verification process – such as specifying the recipient’s phone number or email and subsequently sending activation code to the recipient’s phone number or email. The present claim language does not specify how to determine a user’s identity, and as such, the present claim is not distinguishable from Lingham’s teaching.
II(D). Lingham teaches indicating that the monetary value is unavailable if the first user is not the designated recipient
This limitation only requires the monetary value associated with the greeting card can only be redeemed by the designated recipient. Lingham teaches this feature. Paragraph 0020 of Langham teaches a gift card may be locked so that only the designated recipient can redeem the gift card after passing verification. Paragraph 0034-0035, “unlocking may occur without involving the sender, e.g., via a challenge and response to the recipient, or comparison of identifying information at the recipient’s device with information provided by the sender”, subsequently “the recipient may redeem the selected gift cards”. The unlocking process is an identification verification process. One skilled in the art would understand that if the user who scans the barcode is not the designated recipient, the user would not be able to redeem the designated monetary value, and that a decline message would typically be presented to the user. In other words, the user would receive a message indicating that the monetary value is not available.
II(E). Sawin cures the deficiencies in Lingham
Applicant argued that Sawin does not teach “a first panel having removable material over the QR code”. Examiner disagrees and points out see paragraph 0044 of Sawin, “The card may, however, maintain a scratch off substance or peel off substance concealing a barcode or other authorization number”. Sawin clearly teaches a removable portion of material situated over a QR code. Applicant argued that Sawin does not disclose any of the application-user, designated-recipient, recipient-value-association, identity-comparison, or conditional indication operations in discussion. Examiner points out that Sawin does not need to teach these limitations, because Lingham teaches them. Sawin only needs to teach a well-known and conventional feature of a removable material concealing a QR code, and the prior art definitely teaches that.
Applicant also submits new claims 2-20. Updated rejection is provided in this Office Action.
Conclusion
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
SEPT-2026
