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 is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 19/724,789 filed on July 21, 2025, title: “Digital Financial Management With Account Balance Preview By Paired User-Authorized Second Client Device Without User Authorization”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 07/21/2025 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/060,311 filed on 11/30/2022 (Patented No. 12,387,207) and claims no priority of any foreign application. For the purpose of examination, the 11/30/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) listing all relevant reference(s) is not enclosed to this application.
Specification
Claims 1, and 19-20 are objected to because they contain more than one element in the step:
bypassing, by the server computing system in response to detecting the wireless pairing, authentication protocols for the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device and displaying account balance data associated with the one or more accounts on a user interface of the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
Appropriate correction is required in response to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application recite substantially the same limitations as the claims of the Patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. The Application and Patent are directed to the same field of invention of a method/system for managing financial transaction using a paired client devices. Also, both the Application and Patent have the same inventors and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-18 recite a server computing system comprising processors and memories with stored instructions, claim 19 recites a computer program product comprising computer readable medium, and claim 20 recites a computer-implemented method comprising a series of steps. Therefore, the claims recite a machine, manufacturer, and process which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 20 recites a computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting, by a server computing system, a wireless pairing between an authenticated first client device of a user having one more one or more accounts at an enterprise and an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device; and
bypassing, by the server computing system in response to detecting the wireless pairing, authentication protocols for the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device and displaying account balance data associated with the one or more accounts on a user interface of the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., processors, memories, and authenticated first client device, and unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including a method of managing a financial transaction using wireless-paired client devices by: detecting a wireless pairing between the authenticated first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, bypassing authentication protocols for the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, and displaying account balance data on a user interface of the user-authorized second client device in order for authorization. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
The claim recites a method of managing a financial transaction using wireless-paired client devices, which is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The additional elements, such as the processors, memories, authenticated first client device, and unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, all are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked to perform the generic steps including detecting, bypassing, and displaying.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed to detect and display account balance in order for user to authorize a financial transaction). The mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 20 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claim 1 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory computer- readable medium of claim 19 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of computer processors, memories comprising computer-executable code, authenticated first client device, and unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions such as detecting a wireless pairing between an authenticated first client device and an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, bypassing authentication protocols, and displaying account balance on the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device for authorization) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is supported by the Applicant’s Specification (see at least paragraphs 106-126 and Figures 1-4 of Publication No. 2025/0348874-A1).
Paragraph 93 describes a “client device” to be any device “… “client device” relates to any device associated with a user, including personal computers, laptops, tablets, and/or mobile smartphones.”, paragraph 94 describes “… A hardware module may include software encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor …”, paragraph 95 describes “… As used herein, “network” or “networks” relates to any combination of electronic communication networks, including without limitation the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network, a wireless network, and a cellular network”, paragraph 101 describes “… “sensor” relates to any device, component and/or system …”, paragraph 107 describes “… the second client device 100b respectively comprises a computing device, including but not limited to a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a smart phone, a handheld personal computer, a workstation, a game console, a cellular phone, a mobile device, a personal computing device, a wearable electronic device, a smartwatch, smart eyewear, a tablet computer, a convertible tablet computer, or any other electronic, microelectronic, or micro-electromechanical device for processing and communicating data …”, paragraph 109 describes that “… the first client device 100a may have any combination of the various elements illustrated in FIG. 2, and the second client device 100b may have any combination of the various elements illustrated in FIG. 3.”, and paragraph 112 describes “… The one or more data stores 123a, 123b may comprise volatile and/or non-volatile memory. Examples of suitable data stores 123 include, but are not limited to RAM (Random Access Memory), flash memory, ROM (Read Only Memory), PROM (Programmable Read-Only Memory), EPROM (Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory), EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory), registers, magnetic disks, optical disks, hard drives, or any other suitable non-transitory storage medium, or any combination thereof.”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
The independent claims (1 and 19-20) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the detecting, bypassing, and displaying functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. All these are generic computer functions and well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claim. Thus, the dependent claims are also directed to the same abstract idea as discussed in claim 1. The dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including: detecting, before detecting the wireless pairing, the enterprise mobile application running on the first client device, and authenticating the first client device as the authenticated first client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for detecting the enterprise mobile application and authenticating the first client device about). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites additional elements “wherein detecting the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device comprises causing a sensor module of the server computing system to detect the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for causing a sensor module to detect the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites additional elements “wherein detecting the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device comprises detecting metadata that includes detecting an operating system of the authenticated first client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for detecting meta including detecting an operating system). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites additional elements “wherein detecting the wireless pairing comprises receiving pairing information associated with the first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for receiving pairing information associated with the first client device and the second client device). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites additional elements “wherein the pairing information comprises Global Positioning System (GPS) data.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the pairing information comprising GPS). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining, after authenticating the first client device and based on an analysis of stored user profile data, that an account balance preview is enabled by the user.”. (Additional detailed instructions about the set of instructions). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including: detecting, as sensor data after determining that the account balance preview is enabled by the user, a current geographic position of the authenticated first client device and a current geographic position of an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, and conducting analysis of the sensor data.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the set of instructions). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites additional elements “wherein conducting the analysis of the sensor data comprises determining a current spatial proximity between the authenticated first client device and an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for conducting the analysis of the sensor data). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites additional elements “wherein determining the current spatial proximity comprises calculating, based on the detected current geographic position of the authenticated first client device and the detected current geographic position of an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, a current distance between the authenticated first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for determining the current spatial proximity). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites additional elements “wherein conducting the analysis of the sensor data comprises conducting a comparison between the calculated distance and a predetermined threshold distance.”. (Additional detailed instructions for conducting the analysis of the sensor data). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining that the calculated distance is less than the predetermined threshold distance.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the set of instructions to perform actions including determining the calculated distance). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining, based on the determination that the calculated distance is less than the predetermined threshold distance, whether the calculated distance is maintained for a predetermined threshold time period.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the set of instructions to perform actions including determining whether the calculated distance is maintained for a predetermined time period). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining that the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined time period.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the set of instructions to determine the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined time period). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including causing, based on the determination that the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined time period, the wireless pairing between the authenticated first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the set of instruction to cause the wireless pairing between the first and the second client device). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claims 16-18 recite additional elements “wherein the unauthenticated, user- authorized second client device comprises a wearable electronic device worn by the user, wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a smartwatch, wherein the wearable electronic device comprises smart eyewear.” (Additional details about the wearable electronic devices, such as smartwatch and smart eyewear). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. Every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. There is no inventive concept is found in the claims. The claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of managing financial transaction using wireless-paired client devices. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a mobile device, a computer network, a wearable electronic device, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0348009-A1) (hereinafter “Brown”) and further in view of Krochmal et al. (US PUB. No. 2015/0350814-A1) (hereinafter “Krochmal”).
As per claim 1, Brown teaches a server computing system, comprising:
Brown teaches the following limitations:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors
(see Brown, at least paras. 27-39 and Figure 2), cause the one or more processors to perform actions including:
detecting a wireless pairing between an authenticated first client device of a user having one more one or more accounts at an enterprise and an unauthenticated, user- authorized second client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 30 “In some instances, communication between user devices 205 can facilitate transactions (e.g., generally or specific transactions). For example, one user device (e.g., phone 205b) can serve as a provisioning or managing device, and can send notifications of new or updated payment account data (e.g., information for a new account, updated information for an existing account, and/or an alert pertaining to an existing account). As another example, a first user device can send data to a second user device reflecting information about payment transactions facilitated at the first user device. The information can include, e.g., a payment amount, an account used, a time of purchase and/or whether a default account was changed. Such information can be used at the second device to, for example, update a default account (e.g., based on a learning algorithm or explicit user input); and
Brown in view of Krochmal teaches the following limitations:
bypassing, in response to detecting the wireless pairing, authentication protocols for the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
(see Krochmal, at least paras. “ More specifically, companion electronic device 204 can detect that the user accepted the indication and can bypass the lock screen/unlock operation, allowing the user to start using companion electronic device 204 without unlocking companion electronic device 204. In some embodiments, the user is allowed to bypass the lock screen/unlock operation only before the timer expires.”)
and displaying account balance data associated with the one or more accounts on a user interface of the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 31 “User devices 205 can communicate with each over any of a variety of networks. For example, the devices can communicate using a Bluetooth connection 210 (e.g., which can include a traditional Bluetooth connection or a Bluetooth Low Energy connection) or using a WIFI network 215. Communications between user devices can be conditioned to reduce the possibility of inappropriately sharing information across devices. For example, communications relating to payment information can require that the communicating devices be paired (e.g., being associated with each via an explicit user interaction) or be associated with a same user account.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The motivation is provided in para. 4 of Brown “… However, routinely carrying and/or locating physical cards may be inconvenient.”
As per claim 2, Brown further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including:
detecting, before detecting the wireless pairing, the enterprise mobile application running on the first client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 30 “In some instances, communication between user devices 205 can facilitate transactions (e.g., generally or specific transactions). For example, one user device (e.g., phone 205b) can serve as a provisioning or managing device, and can send notifications of new or updated payment account data (e.g., information for a new account, updated information for an existing account, and/or an alert pertaining to an existing account). As another example, a first user device can send data to a second user device reflecting information about payment transactions facilitated at the first user device. The information can include, e.g., a payment amount, an account used, a time of purchase and/or whether a default account was changed. Such information can be used at the second device to, for example, update a default account (e.g., based on a learning algorithm or explicit user input.), and
authenticating the first client device as the authenticated first client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 25 “… a user 105 can use a user device 110 in order to complete a transaction. Payment information can be securely stored on user device 110, and a secure element can conditionally release payment information to be transmitted to another device (or to be used by an app on device 110).”).
As per claim 3, Brown further teaches wherein detecting the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device comprises causing a sensor module of the server computing system to detect the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 48 “… User device 205 can include a transaction event detector 345 that detects a transaction-initiating event, such as an input, sensor reading or signal that corresponds to a payment process.”, 51 “… user interface engine 370 detects sensor data indicative of user interactions…”; Figure 3/elements 310, 345, 370).
As per claim 4, Brown further teaches wherein detecting the mobile application running on the authenticated first client device comprises detecting metadata that includes detecting an operating system of the authenticated first client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 124 “… The communication can include (in its content or metadata) the device identifier that identifies which device is sending the communication (e.g., such that, in this instance, it is the same as the provisioning device unique identifier”).
As per claim 5, Brown further teaches wherein detecting the wireless pairing comprises receiving pairing information associated with the first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
(see Brown, at least para. 31 “User devices 205 can communicate with each over any of a variety of networks. For example, the devices can communicate using a Bluetooth connection 210 (e.g., which can include a traditional Bluetooth connection or a Bluetooth Low Energy connection) or using a WIFI network 215. Communications between user devices can be conditioned to reduce the possibility of inappropriately sharing information across devices. For example, communications relating to payment information can require that the communicating devices be paired (e.g., being associated with each via an explicit user interaction) or be associated with a same user account. Figure 2/elements 205a-b).
As per claim 6, Brown further teaches wherein the pairing information comprises Global Positioning System (GPS) data
(see Brown, at least paras. 82-83 “a GPS receiver 448”; Figure 4).
As per claim 7, Brown further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining, after authenticating the first client device and based on an analysis of stored user profile data, that an account balance preview is enabled by the user
(see Brown, at least paras. 25 “… User device 110 can identify a payment account to use for a transaction. In some instances, a default account is identified. In some instances, user 105 can provide input to device 110 to select between accounts.”).
As per claim 8, Brown further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including:
detecting, as sensor data after determining that the account balance preview is enabled by the user, a current geographic position of the authenticated first client device and a current geographic position of an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 25 “… User device 110 can identify a payment account to use for a transaction. In some instances, a default account is identified. In some instances, user 105 can provide input to device 110 to select between accounts.”; Figure 1), and
conducting analysis of the sensor data
(see Brown, at least paras. 25 “… User device 110 can identify a payment account to use for a transaction. In some instances, a default account is identified. In some instances, user 105 can provide input to device 110 to select between accounts.”; Figure 1).
As per claim 9, Brown in view of Krochmal further teaches wherein conducting the analysis of the sensor data comprises determining a current spatial proximity between the authenticated first client device and an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
Brown in view of Krochmal teaches the following limitations:
(see Krochmal, at least paras. 50 “… In other words, source electronic device 202 and companion electronic device 204 are in “proximity” to one another, thereby enabling the exchange of messages between the electronic devices. “Proximity” as used herein therefore represents distance(s) at which messages broadcast/sent from a given electronic device can be received by one or more other electronic devices. This distance is dictated by radio equipment (antennas, receivers/transmitters, etc.) in the electronic devices and the particular radio protocol/signals used to broadcast/send the messages, as limited by factors such as environmental conditions (electromagnetic interference, etc.), intermediate objects (furniture, walls, clothing/bags, etc.), etc. For example, in some embodiments, communication signals 208 are exchanged between source electronic device 202 and companion electronic device 204 using a protocol with an expected range of 30 meters, and thus the devices are “in proximity” when the devices are within 30 meters of one another (note, however, that the expected range may be significantly altered by the above-described factors).”,
para. 51 “… As can be seen in FIG. 16, companion electronic device 204 is within range 1602 for radio signals (e.g., communication signals 208) for source electronic device 202, meaning that companion electronic device 204 can receive radio signals sent from source electronic device 202. … As described above, therefore, source electronic device 202 and companion electronic device 204 are “in proximity” to one another, thereby enabling the communication of messages (and corresponding operations) herein described.” and Figure 16,
para. 56, “For example, source electronic device 202 may measure a frequency at which the first application provides updates to controller information, and may discard controller information from the first application when the frequency at which the controller information is updated exceeds a threshold (which may be referred to as “throttling” the controller information from the first application).”.
Also see Brown, para. 78 “In some embodiments, RF interface 408 can implement a Bluetooth LE (Low energy) proximity sensor 409 that supports proximity detection through an estimation of signal strength and/or other protocols for determining proximity to another electronic device.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown and Krochmal as in claim 1 for the purpose of determining the current spatial proximity between the client devices.
As per claim 10, Brown in view of Krochmal further teaches wherein determining the current spatial proximity comprises calculating, based on the detected current geographic position of the authenticated first client device and the detected current geographic position of an unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device, a current distance between the authenticated first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
Brown in view of Krochmal teaches the following limitations:
(see Krochmal, at least paras. 50-51, 56 and Figure 16.
see Brown, at least paras. 78,
para. 31 “For example, communications relating to payment information can require that the communicating devices be paired (e.g., being associated with each via an explicit user interaction) or be associated with a same user account.”,
para. 30 “In some instances, communication between user devices 205 can facilitate transactions (e.g., generally or specific transactions). For example, one user device (e.g., phone 205b) can serve as a provisioning or managing device, and can send notifications of new or updated payment account data (e.g., information for a new account, updated information for an existing account, and/or an alert pertaining to an existing account). As another example, a first user device can send data to a second user device reflecting information about payment transactions facilitated at the first user device. The information can include, e.g., a payment amount, an account used, a time of purchase and/or whether a default account was changed. Such information can be used at the second device to, for example, update a default account (e.g., based on a learning algorithm or explicit user input)”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown and Krochmal as in claim 1 for the purpose of calculating the current distance between the client devices based on the detected geographic position of the client devices.
As per claim 11, Brown in view of Krochmal further teaches wherein conducting the analysis of the sensor data comprises conducting a comparison between the calculated distance and a predetermined threshold distance
(see Krochmal, para. 50-51, 56 and Figure 16. Also see Brown, para. 78).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown and Krochmal as in claim 1 for the purpose of comparing the calculated distance and predetermined threshold distance.
As per claim 12, Brown in view of Krochmal further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining that the calculated distance is less than the predetermined threshold distance
(see Krochmal, para. 50-51, 56 and Figure 16. Also see Brown, para. 78)..
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown and Krochmal as in claim 1 for the purpose of determining that the calculated distance is less than the predetermined threshold.
As per claim 13, Brown further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining, based on the determination that the calculated distance is less than the predetermined threshold distance, whether the calculated distance is maintained for a predetermined threshold time period
(see Brown, at least paras. 33 “… If a communication channel (e.g., an NFC communication channel) with another device (e.g., POS terminal 220) is established within a defined time period from detection of the input, the secure element may release payment information to be transmitted to the other device.”,
para. 142, “… In some instances, it can be required that the payment-authorizing input be detected while the POS terminal is detected or within a defined time period from detection of the POS terminal. In some instances, it can be required that the POS terminal be detected within a defined time period from the detection of the payment-authorizing input.”
para. 144 “… process 1000 can continue to block 1020 where a default payment account can be identified. In one instance, the default payment account can include one associated with a highest number of uses (e.g., on the device, on a set of devices associated with a user or user account, or generally) generally or during a time period.”,
and claims 4, 20, and 34).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown and Krochmal as in claim 1 for the purpose of determining that the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined threshold time period.
As per claim 14, Brown further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including determining that the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined time period
(see Brown, at least paras. 33, 142, 144, and claims 4, 20, and 34).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features, as taught by Krochmal, in the system/method of Brown and Krochmal as in claim 1 for the purpose of determining that the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined time period.
As per claim 15, Brown further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions including causing, based on the determination that the calculated distance is maintained for the predetermined time period, the wireless pairing between the authenticated first client device and the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device
(see Brown, at least paras. 33, 142, 144, and claims 4, 20, and 34).
As per claim 16, Brown further teaches wherein the unauthenticated, user-authorized second client device comprises a wearable electronic device worn by the user
(see Brown, at least paras. 27 “A variety of devices can be involved in a transaction process. FIG. 2 shows examples of devices connected via one or more communication channels to complete a transaction according to an embodiment of the present invention. Exemplary user devices 205 that can detect a particular user input (e.g., which can include detecting a local input, a non-virtual input and/or a mechanical input) and/or conditionally transmit payment information (e.g., using NFC) can include a wearable device 205a (e.g., a necklace, headband, clip, belt, bracelet, watch, pair of glasses, armband, or ear piece) and a phone 205b (e.g., a smart phone). One or more user devices 205 can include or be an NFC-enabled device and/or an inductor. Figure 2/elements 205a-b).
As per claim 17, Brown further teaches wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a smartwatch
(see Brown, at least paras. 27 “A variety of devices can be involved in a transaction process. FIG. 2 shows examples of devices connected via one or more communication channels to complete a transaction according to an embodiment of the present invention. Exemplary user devices 205 that can detect a particular user input (e.g., which can include detecting a local input, a non-virtual input and/or a mechanical input) and/or conditionally transmit payment information (e.g., using NFC) can include a wearable device 205a (e.g., a necklace, headband, clip, belt, bracelet, watch, pair of glasses, armband, or ear piece) and a phone 205b (e.g., a smart phone). One or more user devices 205 can include or be an NFC-enabled device and/or an inductor. Figure 2/elements 205a-b).
As per claim 18, Brown further teaches wherein the wearable electronic device comprises smart eyewear
(see Brown, at least paras. 27 “A variety of devices can be involved in a transaction process. FIG. 2 shows examples of devices connected via one or more communication channels to complete a transaction according to an embodiment of the present invention. Exemplary user devices 205 that can detect a particular user input (e.g., which can include detecting a local input, a non-virtual input and/or a mechanical input) and/or conditionally transmit payment information (e.g., using NFC) can include a wearable device 205a (e.g., a necklace, headband, clip, belt, bracelet, watch, pair of glasses, armband, or ear piece) and a phone 205b (e.g., a smart phone). One or more user devices 205 can include or be an NFC-enabled device and/or an inductor. Figure 2/elements 205a-b).
As per claim 19, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
As per claim 20, this claim written in computer-implemented method form corresponds to claim 1 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 1.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights