Data sharing with card issuer via wallet app in payment-enabled mobile device

All actions (8)

Office ActionLatest

Mar 18, 2025

Office Action received March 18, 2025 — structured data incomplete; full examination details not yet available

Review the full office action document in Private PAIR or the PDF you received from the USPTO to see the examiner's rejections and any claim amendments or arguments required. Response deadlines are typically three months from the mailing date, extendable to six months with fees. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Procedural framework (4)

MPEP§ 2106.05(a)·§ 2106.05(b)·§ 2106.05(c)

Case lawIn Re OIP Technologies

Final Office Action

May 10, 2024 · §101, §112

Final Office Action — claims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16, 18 rejected under §101 and §112(b) indefiniteness

A response is due within three months from May 10, 2024, extendable to six months with fees. Because this is Final, the applicant typically must either: (1) amend claims and argue they overcome both rejections, (2) file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with amendments or arguments to reopen prosecution, or (3) appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An examiner interview before responding can sometimes clarify paths forward. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 101Law of natureclaims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16, 18
Claims 1, 4 – 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Final Office Action mailed May 10, 2024
§ 101Law of natureclaims 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Final Office Action mailed May 10, 2024
§ 112(b)Indefinitenessclaims 1, 10, 16
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite.
Final Office Action mailed May 10, 2024

Procedural framework (4)

MPEP§ 2106.05(a)·§ 2106.05(b)·§ 2106.05(c)·§ 706.07(a)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Sep 22, 2023 · §101, §103

Non-Final Office Action after RCE — claims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16, 18 rejected under §101 and §103

The applicant has three months from September 22, 2023 to respond, extendable to six months with fees. An attorney typically argues that the claims do provide significantly more than the abstract idea (often by pointing to technical details the examiner overlooked) and may amend the claims to distinguish them from the cited prior art or sharpen the technical contribution. Interviews with the examiner are common at this stage. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 101Law of natureclaims 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Sep 22, 2023
§ 101Abstract ideaclaims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16, 18
Claims 1, 4 – 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Sep 22, 2023
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16, 18
Claims 1, 4 – 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al., U.S. 2016/0267486 in view of Shrivastava, U.S. 2014/0019352 in view of Lloyd et al., U.S. 2017/0091764.

Final Office Action

Apr 17, 2023 · §101, §103

Final Office Action — claims 1-14, 16-18 rejected under §101 (abstract idea) and §103 (obviousness)

Because this is a Final Office Action, the applicant has a shortened response window — typically 3 months from the mail date (April 17, 2023), extendable up to 6 months with fees. Options include filing a response with arguments and amendments (though claim amendments after Final are restricted), requesting an examiner interview to narrow issues, filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution, or appealing to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 101Law of natureclaims 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Final Office Action mailed Apr 17, 2023
§ 101Abstract ideaclaims 1-14, 16-18
Claims 1 – 14 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Final Office Action mailed Apr 17, 2023
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-14, 16-18
Claims 1 – 14 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al., U.S. 2016/0267486 in view of Shrivastava, U.S. 2014/0019352 in view of Spector et al., U.S. 10,204,337.

Non-Final Office Action

Sep 29, 2022 · §101

Non-Final Office Action — claims 1-20 rejected under §101 as abstract idea; claim 1 also has informalities

The applicant has three months (extendable to six) to respond. A typical response argues that the claims are not abstract or that they contain an inventive concept, amends the claims to add technical detail, or both. The examiner cited two prior patents (Mitra and Shrivastava), so the attorney may also address how the claims differ. An examiner interview is often useful for §101 issues. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (2)

§ 101Law of natureclaims 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep 29, 2022
§ 101Abstract ideaclaims 1-20
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep 29, 2022

Prior art consulted (2)

Identifier	Type

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Aug 21, 2020 · §101

Non-Final Office Action after RCE — all claims 1-20 rejected under §101

The applicant must respond within three months (extendable to six months with fees). Common attorney strategies include arguing that the claims are tied to a specific technical improvement, amending the claims to add concrete technical elements, or requesting an examiner interview to clarify the invention's technical nature. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (1)

§ 101Non statutory subject matterclaims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Aug 21, 2020
Examiner theory
First, the current statutory subject matter test is performed and the claims recite a device or set of devices and therefore directed to a machine which is a statutory category. Second, step 2A, Prong One: The claims recite a method for engaging in a transaction at a point of sale, transmitting transaction details, receiving a response and based on response making a payment the point of sale. The claimed limitations recite a process of receiving data, processing data and determining the payment, which is an abstract process because it addresses receiving information and processing information, to enable payment. This is managing human activity.

Final Office Action

May 14, 2020 · §101

Final Office Action — all claims 1-20 rejected under §101 as non-statutory subject matter

The applicant typically has three months (extendable to six) to respond. Common attorney strategies include filing arguments that the claims are tied to a specific technical improvement, amending claims to add concrete technical limitations, requesting an examiner interview to clarify the invention's technical nature, or filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if more substantive changes are needed. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (1)

§ 101Non statutory subject matterclaims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2020
Examiner theory
First, the current statutory subject matter test is performed and the claims recite a device or set of devices and therefore directed to a machine which is a statutory category. Second, step 2A, Prong One: The claims recite a method for engaging in a transaction at a point of sale, transmitting transaction details, receiving a response and based on response making a payment the point of sale. The claimed limitations recite a process of receiving data, processing data and determining the payment, which is an abstract process because it addresses receiving information and processing information, to enable payment. This is managing human activity.

Procedural framework (1)

Non-Final Office Action

Oct 23, 2019 · §101, §103

Non-Final Office Action — all claims 1-20 rejected under §101 and claims 3-5, 11, 17-18 also rejected under §103

Because this is a non-final action, the applicant has three months (extendable to six) to respond. A response typically involves arguing that the claims are patent-eligible under §101 (often by showing a technical improvement or integration with hardware) and distinguishing the prior art references for the §103 rejection, amending claims to add limitations not taught by the references, or both. An examiner interview is often useful to clarify positions. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (2)

§ 101Non statutory subject matterclaims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct 23, 2019
Examiner theory
First, the current statutory subject matter test is performed and the claims recite a device or set of devices and therefore directed to a machine which is a statutory category. Second, step 2A, Prong One: The claims recite a method for engaging in a transaction at a point of sale, transmitting transaction details, receiving a response and based on response making a payment the point of sale. The claimed limitations recite a process of receiving data, processing data and determining the payment, which is an abstract process because it addresses receiving information and processing information, to enable payment. This is managing human activity.

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20160267486	patent publication	Mitra et al.	View ↗
US20140019352	patent publication	Shrivastava	View ↗
US20170091764	patent publication	Lloyd et al.	View ↗

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20160267486	patent publication	Mitra et al.	View ↗
US20140019352	patent publication	Shrivastava	View ↗
US10204337	us patent	Spector et al.	View ↗

US20160267486	patent publication	Mitra et al.	View ↗
US20140019352	patent publication	Shrivastava	View ↗

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20160253651	patent publication	Park et al.	View ↗
US20100318446	patent publication	Carter	View ↗
US20180032993	patent publication	Park	View ↗

The latest Office Action

Claim status

Open 15/637,747 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (8)

Office ActionLatest

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (3)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (3)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (3)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (2)

Prior art consulted (2)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (1)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (1)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (2)

Prior art consulted (3)

Prior art consulted (3)

Objections (1)

Prior art consulted (3)