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 communication is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on May 4, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 and 11 are directed to a mobile device and what the mobile device does. However, the claims include other entities outside of the mobile device and what each one of the other entities performs. Entities outside of the claimed scope directed to the mobile device result in an unclear scope of the claims; more specifically with claims 11-20. The claims should instead be amended to capture a method which includes not only the mobile device but at least a voice assistant client device and a voice assistant cloud service. Without these three vital entities the required architecture is not captured to advance a transaction.
Also, regarding claims 11-20, the claims recite that the mobile device comprises input/output (I/O) circuitry. It is understood that the circuitry is structure. However, to ensure clear scope, the claims should instead recite appropriate Beauregard language to resolve any doubt of structure that performs the claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a system comprising circuitry of a mobile device and capture what the mobile device does. However, the claims also focus on other entities other than the mobile device, which are not part of the claimed system. As a result, all of the entities other than the mobile device are deemed to be outside the scope of the claims; rendering the claims indefinite. Any teaching of a mobile device that receives transaction data, authenticates the user based on received input, generates an encrypted digital token, and sends the token will be deemed as reading on the claimed scope.
All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claim.
Claims 11-20 are rejected because at least claim 11 recites “the mobile device” in line 2 after the pre-amble. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the limitation at issue. All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claim.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of displaying a payment method provisioning data to advance a transaction without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities, and business relations. The claimed scope is directed to a transaction ID being sent to a mobile device (private device per Specification) so the user can approve the payment there [0006], [0035]. The user then authenticates on the private device with respect to a wallet/account [0025], [0035]. The private device generates an encrypted payment token using payment details and a provider-related key [0025], [0040]. That token is sent to the payment service provider. The claimed scope clearly captures business relations between the user and the provider in order to settle a transaction. The scope is also clearly indicative of sales activities. Without an account and user authentication, actions rooted in sales, a transaction could be prevented. Likewise, the code that represents transaction data depends on the user account information along with other information based on the transaction requested to be processed. The abstract idea also falls under mental processes, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. The claimed limitations as a whole require nothing more than a human mind and pen-and-paper to execute the claimed scope. The additional elements, which will be discussed later, merely amount to extra solution activity/apply the exception. A human mind can generate an encrypted code using pen-and-paper and send it verbally or via paper to another entity just as the human mind can receive transaction data verbally or via paper before processing the received data and authenticating another human. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to a mobile device and what it does. Recitations directed to other entities are not addressed as they are outside the scope, and amount to non-functional descriptive material (i.e. wherein the transaction identifier is transmitted to the mobile device based at least in part on a voice command uttered by a user associated with the mobile device, wherein the voice command is received at a voice assistant client device, and wherein the voice assistant client device is proximate to the mobile device AND wherein the service provider decrypts the encrypted digital token to complete the transaction using the payment details).
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A method… the method comprising:
receiving, from one or more servers, a transaction identifier for a transaction…;
authenticating the user… with respect to a… wallet stored locally…;
generating, based at least in part on the authenticating, an encrypted digital token comprising payment details for performing the transaction, wherein… [generating] the encrypted digital token based at least in part on the… wallet and an encryption key related to a service provider associated with the transaction; and
transmitting the encrypted digital token and the transaction identifier to the service provider associated with the transaction…
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: A method, performed by a mobile device, a digital wallet, input/output (I/O) circuitry of mobile device. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, analyzing the data/manipulating data, generating data, and sending data. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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. The claims, including the additional elements merely add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements 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 elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims include entities that are outside the claimed mobile device. Therefore, such claims/additional elements fail to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter. None of the dependent claims recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0175154 to Ratnakaram et al. (Ratnakaram).
Per claims 1 and 11, Ratnakaram teaches all of the following limitations:
A method, performed by a mobile device, the method comprising [Abstract, Figures 5 and 6]:
receiving, from one or more servers, a transaction identifier for a transaction, wherein the transaction identifier is transmitted to the mobile device based at least in part on a voice command uttered by a user associated with the mobile device, wherein the voice command is received at a voice assistant client device, and wherein the voice assistant client device is proximate to the mobile device (user device receives transaction data from an a device that is an audible device and is able to provide the transaction data to the mobile device) [Paragraphs 0085-0086];
authenticating the user of the mobile device with respect to a digital wallet stored locally on the mobile device (user is authenticated by both the smart assistant device and the mobile device including smart assistant application 507 and related digital wallet prior to sending the payment information to the server) [Paragraphs 0027, 0078-0080 and 0125];
generating, based at least in part on the authenticating, an encrypted digital token comprising payment details for performing the transaction, wherein the mobile device generates the encrypted digital token based at least in part on the digital wallet and an encryption key related to a service provider associated with the transaction (the mobile device comprising the smart assistant application and digital wallet, encrypt payment information and send it to appropriate entities including a token in order to settle the transaction) [Paragraphs 0087, and 0120-0128 and Figures 5-6 and 9]; and
transmitting the encrypted digital token and the transaction identifier to the service provider associated with the transaction, wherein the service provider decrypts the encrypted digital token to complete the transaction using the payment details [Paragraphs 0082-0083, 0087 and 0126].
Per claims 2, and 12 Ratnakaram teaches wherein: the mobile device is a smartphone; and the smartphone and the voice assistant client device are connected to a same wireless network [Paragraphs 0071-0073].
Examiner notes that the voice assistant is not part of the claimed scope, therefore, it has not patentable weight.
Per claims 3, and 13 Ratnakaram teaches wherein the voice assistant device transmits data indicative of the voice command to a voice assistant cloud service, wherein the voice assistant cloud service performs voice recognition to identify a profile associated with the user who uttered the voice command, and wherein the mobile device is identified as being associated with the user based at least in part on the mobile device being indicated in the profile [Abstract, Paragraphs 0063, 0066 and 0074-0075].
Examiner notes that the voice assistant device is outside the scope of the claims therefore it has not patentable weight.
Per claims 4, and 14, Ratnakaram teaches wherein: the transaction identifier comprises a user identifier corresponding to the user, an amount corresponding to the transaction, and merchant details corresponding to the transaction; the authenticating is performed based at least in part on the transaction identifier; and the transaction is completed based at least in part on the transaction identifier [Paragraphs 0081-0087].
Transaction completion is outside the scope of the claims; therefore, it has no patentable weight.
Per claims 5, and 15, receiving, at the mobile device and from a voice assistant cloud service, a notification, wherein the notification is provided to the mobile device at least in part on data indicative of the voice command being transmitted from the voice assistant client device to the voice assistant cloud service [Abstract, Paragraphs 0063, 0066 and 0074-0075].
Claims 5 and 15 are not directed to the mobile device, rendering them outside the scope of the claims and having no patentable weight.
Per claims 6, and 16, wherein the notification is a push notification comprising the transaction identifier [Paragraph 0098].
Per claims 7, and 17, wherein the authenticating is based at least in part on receiving and authenticating at least one of a password, a PIN, or biometric data of the user to provide access to the mobile device [Paragraphs 0104].
Per claims 8, and 18, wherein a voice assistant cloud service causes output at the voice assistant client device, after the voice command is received, of a confirmatory audio notification in relation to the transaction, wherein the confirmatory audio notification is output prior to the transaction being completed [Paragraphs 0011, 0074-0075].
Claims 8 and 18 are outside the scope of the claims, having no patentable weight.
Per claims 9, and 19, wherein a voice assistant cloud service causes output at the voice assistant client device, after the voice command is received, of a confirmatory audio notification in relation to the transaction, wherein the confirmatory audio notification is output after the transaction is completed [Paragraphs 0011, 0062-0077].
Claims 9 and 19 are outside the scope of the claims, having no patentable weight.
Per claims 10, and 20, wherein the voice command is a first command, and the voice assistant client device further receives a second voice command from the user specifying that the mobile device is to receive data in relation to the transaction [Paragraphs 0011, 0062-0077].\
Claims 10 and 20 are outside the scope of the claims, having not patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
See PGPUB 20200382480 to Isaacson et al. which teaches a user mobile device generating a token comprising transaction data and sending said token to an entity to settle a transaction. Tokenization is well settled in the art. See other references cited, which teach use of tokens to settle transactions using a user mobile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights