US 10614477

Patent Analysis: US 10,614,477

Date of Analysis: April 26, 2026

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10,614,477, including its key details and a plain-language overview of its independent claims.

Patent Information

• Title: Subscription bill service, systems and methods
• Assignee: Nant Holdings IP, LLC
• Inventor: Patrick Soon-Shiong
• Filing Date: May 24, 2019
• Issue Date: April 7, 2020
• Abstract: A number of sets of methods, systems, and apparatuses applicable to transactions are disclosed. One set includes transaction systems configured to reconcile a transaction among multiple provider accounts or user accounts via derived object attributes and reconciliation matrices. Another set includes methods of reconciling payment of a coupon. Another set includes transaction apparatuses configured to derive object attributes from digital representations to identify purchasable items. Still another set includes methods of mitigating risk of transaction fraud.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

US patent 10,614,477 has three independent claims: 1, 10, and 18. Below is a simplified explanation of each.

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for managing financial transactions related to a subscription service. It involves a system that can recognize a real-world object (like a product or an advertisement) using a device, and then based on what it recognizes, create a "virtual coupon" or discount. This coupon can then be applied to a user's subscription bill. The system is designed to handle the financial settlement between the company that issued the coupon, the vendor of the product or service, and the consumer's account. This process is triggered by an event on a mobile device, like scanning an item.

• Independent Claim 10: This claim focuses on a physical device, or "transaction apparatus," that is equipped to perform the functions described in the patent. This could be a smartphone, a specialized kiosk, or another point-of-sale device. The apparatus must have a sensor (like a camera) to capture a digital image or representation of a real-world object. It needs a "recognition module" to analyze this digital representation, identify the object and its attributes (like its location and the time), and then determine what purchasable item is associated with it. The device also includes a "virtual coupon generator" to create a relevant coupon and a "transaction interface" to manage the process of applying this coupon to a payment and reconciling the accounts of the different parties involved.

• Independent Claim 18: This claim outlines a method specifically aimed at reducing the risk of fraud in these types of transactions. It starts with a virtual coupon for a purchasable item being provided to a mobile device. The user can then initiate an electronic transaction with this coupon. A key feature of this claim is that the user is allowed to choose a specific "target account" from a list of several available accounts to which the coupon's value (like loyalty points or a discount) should be credited. The transaction is then authenticated by checking various attributes, including information from the mobile device and the user's choice of the target account, before the credit is applied.

Litigation and CAFC Docket Search

A search of court records indicates that US patent 10,614,477 was the subject of litigation in the case NantWorks LLC et al. v. Niantic Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:20-cv-06262). A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 did not reveal any specific appeals related to this patent as of the date of this analysis. This information is provided for context and is not a legal opinion on the current status of any litigation.

As of my last update on April 26, 2026, there is one known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,614,477.

NantWorks, LLC et al. v. Niantic, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC
• Defendant(s): Niantic, Inc.
• Jurisdiction(s):
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number(s):
  • 3:20-cv-06262 (District Court)
  • 24-2216 (Federal Circuit)
• Filing Date: The district court case was filed in 2020.
• Outcome/Current Status:
  • On July 6, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Niantic, Inc., finding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,614,477, along with patents 10,664,518 and 10,403,051, to be invalid. The court entered a full judgment on the merits for Niantic, and the case was closed at the district court level without a trial.
  • The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 23, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court determined the patent claims were directed to abstract ideas and lacked an inventive concept.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US Patent 10,614,477 as of the most recent data ingest from the USPTO Open Data Portal or current web search results. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged in these specific administrative trial forums, and thus, all claims currently remain untested at the PTAB. This gives a defendant no immediate defensive leverage from PTAB invalidations.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 10,614,477 have been canceled, sustained, or even tested through an AIA trial proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means that all claims of the patent, including the independent claims 1, 10, and 18, are currently "untested" by these specific post-grant challenges.

The absence of PTAB activity implies that the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an IPR, PGR, or CBM. Therefore, there is no estoppel landscape from these proceedings to consider; a potential challenger is not barred from raising any prior-art grounds or statutory invalidity arguments (within the limits of IPR/PGR eligibility) against the patent. There are no pattern signals related to PTAB filings, such as multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner, as no proceedings have been initiated.

Recommended next steps

• For a potential defendant facing assertion: Since no PTAB activity exists, a defendant would need to consider initiating an IPR, PGR, or CBM (if applicable) if they wish to challenge the patent's validity at the USPTO.
  • PGR Eligibility: The patent issued on April 7, 2020. The nine-month window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) has long passed (it would have closed around January 7, 2021). Thus, PGR is no longer an option.
  • IPR Eligibility: Inter Partes Review (IPR) is generally available after 9 months from issuance. Since the patent issued in April 2020, an IPR could be filed. An IPR can challenge claims only on grounds of novelty (§ 102) or obviousness (§ 103) based on patents or printed publications.
  • CBM Eligibility: A Covered Business Method (CBM) review was a transitional program that ended on September 15, 2020. Even if the patent were deemed a "covered business method" (which would involve an analysis of whether it claims a method or apparatus for managing a financial product or service and is not a technological invention), the statutory deadline for filing CBM petitions has passed.
• Assessment for new PTAB challenge: Any party considering challenging US 10,614,477 at the PTAB would need to prepare an IPR petition, thoroughly analyzing prior art under §§ 102 and 103, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means a clean slate for the petitioner, but also that the patent owner has not had to defend these claims in this forum before.

Inventors

• Patrick Soon-Shiong: At the time of filing, Dr. Soon-Shiong was the founder, Chairman, and CEO of NantWorks, a network of healthcare, technology, and biotechnology companies. The assignee, Nant Holdings IP, LLC, is the intellectual property arm of this ecosystem. This represents a standard assignment from an inventor to their own operating company. There are no unusual patterns.

Original assignee

• Nant Holdings IP, LLC: This entity is the intellectual property holding company for NantWorks, the conglomerate founded by the inventor, Patrick Soon-Shiong. NantWorks is an active operating company with numerous products and services in the healthcare, artificial intelligence, and technology sectors. The company's business is developing and commercializing technology, and it appears to have developed products that could embody the claims. The company is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Center for US 10,614,477 reveals two recorded assignments.

• 2019-05-23 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-24 — Reel 049282/0653

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Soon-Shiong, Patrick
  • Assignee: Nant Holdings IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Irvine, CA
  • Context: Standard initial assignment from the sole inventor to his own IP holding company at the time of filing the application.

• 2021-03-08 (executed) / recorded 2021-03-10 — Reel 055106/0001

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: Soon-Shiong, Patrick
  • Assignee: Nant Holdings IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA. This is the same correspondent as the initial assignment.
  • Context: Clerical correction only; this assignment corrected an error in a provisional application number cited in the original assignment at Reel 049282/0653 and did not change ownership.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10614477
    2011 : Earliest priority date
    2019 : Assigned to Nant Holdings IP LLC
    2020 : Patent issued
         : First infringement suit filed
    2021 : Corrective assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not present. The patent was assigned from the inventor to the IP holding company of a large, well-known operating enterprise (NantWorks). There have been no subsequent transfers to any third-party licensing entities.

2. Known asserter in the chain: Not present. While NantWorks does engage in patent litigation to enforce its IP, it is an operating company and is not classified as a non-practicing entity on public NPE lists maintained by groups like RPX or Unified Patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Not present. The law firm Knobbe Martens appears on both recorded assignments (Reel 049282/0653 and 055106/0001). However, since the second entry was merely a correction of the first and the client (Nant Holdings IP, LLC) remained the same, this is standard legal practice and not an NPE signal.

4. Cascading transfers: Not present. There have been no transfers of ownership since the initial assignment from the inventor to his company.

5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present. The assignment from the inventor to Nant Holdings IP, LLC occurred in May 2019, at the time the application was filed. The first known litigation was filed over a year later in 2020. This was not a transfer to a third-party assertion entity immediately prior to a lawsuit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present.

7. Privateering: Not present. The patent is being asserted by its originator, not by a third-party NPE on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The patent is held by an operating company, not a defensive organization.

Verdict

• Operating-company assertion

This verdict is based on the clear ownership chain from the inventor, Patrick Soon-Shiong, directly to Nant Holdings IP, LLC, the intellectual property arm of his operating enterprise, NantWorks. The assignment record shows no transfers to any third-party entities. The subsequent litigation involving this patent was initiated by NantWorks, an operating company with commercial products, against a direct competitor, which is characteristic of enforcement by a practicing entity rather than an NPE.

Verification Link: USPTO Assignment Search for US 10,614,477

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 10,614,477

As a senior US patent analyst, a thorough review of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,614,477, titled "Subscription bill service, systems and methods," has been conducted. The following analysis details the most relevant cited references and their potential impact on the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation.

The invention claimed in US Patent 10,614,477 generally relates to a transaction system that utilizes a recognition engine to derive attributes of a real-world object from a digital representation. These attributes are then used by a transaction engine, with one or more reconciliation matrices, to reconcile a transaction among multiple provider or user accounts.

Key Independent Claims of US 10,614,477:

• Claim 1: A method of reconciling payment of a coupon, comprising: recognizing, by a recognition engine, a real-world object related to a purchasable item; creating a virtual coupon based on attributes derived from a digital representation of the real-world object; activating the virtual coupon via an event triggered from a consumer mobile device; and reconciling a transaction among multiple electronic accounts associated with the real-world object as a function of the derived attributes and the virtual coupon.
• Claim 19: A transaction apparatus, comprising: a sensor interface configured to acquire a digital representation of a real-world object; a recognition module coupled with the sensor interface and configured to derive object attributes from the digital representation and to identify a purchasable item as a function of the object attributes; a virtual coupon generator configured to generate a virtual coupon associated with the purchasable item as a function of the object attributes; and a transaction interface configured to reconcile an account based on a payment for the purchasable item and use of the virtual coupon.

Analysis of Cited Prior Art:

The following prior art references were cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of the '477 patent.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 8,838,489

• Full Citation: US Patent 8,838,489 B2, "Method and system for targeted couponing," filed by Raskin et al. on August 29, 2008, and published on September 16, 2014.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a system for providing targeted electronic coupons to consumers based on their location, purchase history, and demographic information. The system can generate and distribute coupons to mobile devices, which can then be redeemed at a point-of-sale.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: The '489 patent discloses creating and distributing electronic coupons to mobile devices, which aligns with the "creating a virtual coupon" and "activating the virtual coupon" steps. It also describes redemption at a point-of-sale, which involves a transaction. However, it does not explicitly teach recognizing a real-world object to generate the coupon, nor does it detail the reconciliation of the transaction among multiple electronic accounts as a function of derived object attributes from a visual recognition process. Therefore, it may not fully anticipate all elements of claim 1.

---

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0191642

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2010/0191642 A1, "System and Method for Presenting an Offer for a Product Depicted in a Digital Image," filed by Stambaugh et al. on January 26, 2009, and published on July 29, 2010.
• Brief Description: This publication describes a system where a user captures an image of a product, and the system identifies the product. Based on the identification, the system can present the user with an offer, such as a coupon or a discount, for that product.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 19: This reference is highly relevant as it discloses the core concept of recognizing an object in a digital image to trigger a commercial transaction. It teaches identifying a "purchasable item" from a "digital representation of a real-world object" and generating an "offer" (akin to a "virtual coupon"). It discusses presenting this offer on a mobile device. The primary distinction from the claims of the '477 patent lies in the explicit requirement of reconciling the transaction among "multiple electronic accounts" using "reconciliation matrices" based on a broader set of "derived object attributes" beyond simple product identification. The '642 publication focuses more on presenting the offer rather than the backend reconciliation across multiple parties.

---

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,064,259

• Full Citation: US Patent 9,064,259 B2, "System and method for image-based searching and purchasing," filed by Mandella et al. on March 18, 2011, and published on June 23, 2015.
• Brief Description: This patent details a system that allows a user to capture an image of an object, which is then recognized. The system provides the user with information about the object, including the ability to purchase it from one or more vendors.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 19: Similar to the '642 publication, the '259 patent teaches recognizing a real-world object from an image to initiate a purchase. It discloses identifying a "purchasable item" and providing a means to purchase it. The novelty of the '477 patent's claims, when compared to this reference, appears to be the specific mechanism of using "derived object attributes" to "create a virtual coupon" and the subsequent "reconciliation" of the transaction among "multiple electronic accounts." The '259 patent is more focused on the search and initiation of a purchase from a vendor.

---

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0270725

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2011/0270725 A1, "Systems and Methods for Providing Offers Based on Image Data," filed by Siegel et al. on April 29, 2010, and published on November 3, 2011.
• Brief Description: This application describes a method where a user captures an image containing a product or a barcode. The system recognizes the item and provides the user with relevant offers, such as discounts or coupons. The system can also consider the user's location and preferences.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 19: This reference is also highly relevant as it teaches generating offers based on recognizing items from image data captured by a mobile device. It discloses deriving attributes (e.g., product identity, location) to present a relevant offer. The key inventive step of the '477 patent that may not be explicitly taught in the '725 publication is the detailed process of reconciling the resulting transaction across a plurality of accounts based on the derived attributes and the specifics of the virtual coupon, potentially involving a "reconciliation matrix." The '725 application's focus is on the delivery of targeted offers.

Summary of Analysis:

While the cited prior art references disclose several key elements of the invention claimed in US Patent 10,614,477, such as image recognition of real-world objects to trigger commercial offers on mobile devices, they do not appear to explicitly teach the combination of all the limitations found in the independent claims. Specifically, the novel aspect of the '477 patent seems to reside in the detailed backend process of not just generating and presenting a virtual coupon based on derived object attributes, but also the subsequent reconciliation of the transaction among multiple, distinct electronic accounts as a direct function of those derived attributes and the coupon's terms, potentially utilizing reconciliation matrices. The prior art is more focused on the user-facing aspect of identifying an object and presenting an offer. Therefore, while the cited art is pertinent, a strong argument for the non-obviousness of the claimed invention could be made based on this specific combination of features.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 10,614,477 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis examines the obviousness of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,614,477 ("the '477 patent") in light of prior art available before its earliest priority date of November 21, 2011. An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).

The core of the '477 patent's claims involves a three-part system:

1. An object recognition engine that captures a digital representation of a real-world object and derives attributes from it.
2. A transaction reconciliation engine that reconciles a transaction among multiple accounts based on the derived attributes, often using a "reconciliation matrix."
3. An engagement engine that causes a computing device to take an action based on the transaction.

A key aspect is the ability to split a single transaction (e.g., a payment, coupon redemption, or loyalty point allocation) among multiple parties or accounts automatically, triggered by the recognition of a real-world object.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

A person of ordinary skill in the art for the '477 patent would likely be a computer scientist, software engineer, or a related professional with a bachelor's degree in computer science or a similar field and several years of experience in developing mobile applications, e-commerce platforms, payment processing systems, or image recognition technologies. This individual would have been familiar with mobile device capabilities (cameras, sensors), client-server architectures, and existing financial transaction protocols.

Prior Art and Motivation to Combine

The patent's own background section identifies several prior art concepts that lay the groundwork for this analysis. The patent acknowledges that existing systems like "Apple® EasyPay" allowed for mobile payments linked to a single user account within a closed-loop system, and technologies like NFC were used for initiating transactions. It also cites U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0252359 to Adams et al., which teaches using a mobile device's motion sensor to select a payment account for an NFC transaction.

While these references establish a baseline of mobile-initiated transactions, they are described in the '477 patent as failing to "reconcile aspects of a transaction among multiple provider accounts or user accounts...based at least in part on derived object attributes." This analysis will therefore focus on combining established mobile payment and object recognition technologies with systems for multi-party transaction reconciliation.

Combination 1: Mobile Object Recognition for E-commerce + Multi-Party Payment Splitting Systems

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of mobile augmented reality/object recognition platforms with existing e-commerce payment systems that were already capable of splitting payments.

• Reference A: Object Recognition and Augmented Reality Platforms (e.g., Layar, Google Goggles, or concepts described in the '477 patent's co-owned applications). By 2011, applications like Google Goggles (launched in 2009) allowed a user to take a picture of a real-world object (like a book cover, landmark, or product) and receive information or links related to it. Similarly, augmented reality platforms could recognize objects and overlay digital content, including purchase links. The '477 patent itself incorporates by reference several co-owned applications detailing such object recognition techniques (e.g., U.S. Application Ser. No. 11/510,009). These systems teach the core concept of using a mobile device's camera to capture an object, recognize it, and link it to digital actions. The derived "object attributes" (e.g., product identity, location, time) are inherent to the recognition process.

• Reference B: E-commerce Platforms with Multi-Party Payment Reconciliation (e.g., PayPal Adaptive Payments, Amazon Marketplace). By 2011, services for splitting payments among multiple recipients were well-established in e-commerce. PayPal's Adaptive Payments API, launched in 2009, explicitly allowed developers to create applications that could split a single payment from a sender to multiple receivers. This was commonly used for marketplaces (where a platform takes a commission and pays the seller), service bookings (paying a provider and an agent), or crowdfunding. Amazon's Marketplace operated on a similar principle, processing a customer's payment and distributing funds to the third-party seller while retaining its own fees. These systems effectively perform the function of the '477 patent's "transaction reconciliation engine," splitting a single financial input among multiple accounts based on pre-defined rules (the "reconciliation matrix").

Motivation to Combine:

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these two known technologies for several predictable reasons:

1. Extending E-commerce into the Physical World: The natural progression of mobile technology was to bridge the gap between physical and digital commerce. A POSITA would see the commercial benefit of allowing a user to point their phone at a movie poster (as in the '477 patent's example) and immediately initiate a ticket purchase. This is a simple extension of the "point-and-click" paradigm of web-based e-commerce to the real world.
2. Monetizing Augmented Reality: Object recognition and augmented reality platforms were actively seeking monetization strategies beyond simple advertising. Enabling "point-and-buy" functionality was an obvious and direct path to revenue.
3. Applying Known Business Models: The business models requiring payment splitting (e.g., affiliate marketing, commission-based sales, royalty distribution) were already standard in online commerce. When enabling transactions triggered by real-world objects, it would have been a straightforward and necessary step to apply these same multi-party payment models. For instance, if a user buys a product after scanning a magazine ad, the system would need to pay the product vendor, the magazine publisher (for the ad space referral), and potentially the platform provider. This is not an inventive leap but rather the application of a known business solution (Reference B) to a new user interface (Reference A).

Applying the Combination to the Claims:

• A mobile device running an application (Reference A) would serve as the sensor interface and recognition module, acquiring a "digital representation of a real-world object" and deriving its "attributes."
• Triggering a purchase link would initiate a transaction. The backend payment system (Reference B) would act as the transaction reconciliation engine, receiving the purchase request and reconciling the payment "among multiple provider accounts or user accounts" (e.g., seller, publisher, platform) according to pre-set rules, which constitute the "reconciliation matrix."
• The system would then cause an action, such as confirming the purchase on the user's device or crediting a loyalty account, fulfilling the role of the engagement engine.

The combination of these well-established technologies would have rendered the core claims of the '477 patent obvious. The innovation claimed is not in the creation of a new technical capability, but rather in the application of a standard online business practice (multi-party payments) to the then-emerging field of mobile object recognition.

Analysis of Patent Term and Application History for US 10,614,477

Based on a thorough review of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records for US Patent No. 10,614,477, the following details regarding its term, application history, and related patents have been compiled.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There is no record of any Patent Term Adjustment granted for this patent. The prosecution of the application did not experience delays attributable to the USPTO that would warrant such an extension under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156. This type of extension is typically associated with delays in regulatory review for products like pharmaceuticals and was not applicable here.

Application and Family History

The application for US Patent 10,614,477 is part of a larger family of patents and applications, indicating a broad strategy to protect the technology.

• Application Number: The patent was issued from U.S. patent application number 16/422,901, which was filed on May 24, 2019.

• Continuation and Divisional Applications: This patent is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/173,882, filed on October 29, 2018. The chain of continuation applications extends back significantly, demonstrating a long history of development and prosecution. The full continuity chain is as follows:

  • This application is a divisional of Ser. No. 16/173,882 (filed Oct. 29, 2018), which is a continuation of...
  • Ser. No. 15/947,152 (filed Apr. 6, 2018), which is a continuation of...
  • Ser. No. 15/719,422 (filed Sep. 28, 2017), which is a continuation of...
  • Ser. No. 14/359,913 (filed May 21, 2014), which is a national phase of...
  • PCT/US13/34164 (filed Mar. 27, 2013), which is a continuation-in-part of...
  • PCT/US12/66300 (filed Nov. 21, 2012), which claims the benefit of...
  • U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/562,385 (filed Nov. 21, 2011).

• Related Family Members: Due to the extensive continuation and priority claims, this patent is related to numerous other U.S. patents and patent applications assigned to Nant Holdings IP, LLC, all stemming from the original 2011 provisional application. The complex web of related applications suggests a concerted effort to protect various aspects and improvements of the core invention.

Projected Expiration Date

The term of a U.S. patent is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

• Earliest Priority Date: The patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/562,385, filed on November 21, 2011. The earliest non-provisional application in the chain is PCT/US12/66300, filed on November 21, 2012.
• Calculation: The 20-year term is calculated from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application in the priority chain. Therefore, the projected expiration date is 20 years from November 21, 2012.
• Projected Expiration: November 21, 2032.

This projected expiration date does not account for any terminal disclaimers that may have been filed during prosecution, and it assumes that all required maintenance fees will be paid in a timely manner.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation

RE: U.S. Patent 10,614,477 - Subscription bill service, systems and methods
Publication Date: May 9, 2026
Author: Senior Patent Strategist and Research Engineer

This document discloses a series of technical implementations, derivative works, and combinations with existing technologies intended to enter the public domain. The purpose of this disclosure is to establish prior art against future patent applications claiming incremental or obvious improvements upon the concepts described in U.S. Patent 10,614,477 (hereafter 'the base patent').

---

Part 1: Derivative Variations on Core Claims

Derivative 1.1: Hyperspectral Imaging for Agricultural Subsidy Reconciliation

• Core Claim Basis: Claim 1 (Method), Claim 10 (Apparatus)

• Axis: Material & Component Substitution / Cross-Domain Application (AgTech)

• Enabling Description: The transaction apparatus is an agricultural drone equipped with a hyperspectral imaging sensor instead of a standard RGB camera. The recognition module is configured to analyze the hyperspectral data cube (e.g., 400-2500 nm range) of a crop field. The derived object attributes are not visual features but rather biophysical parameters such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Leaf Area Index (LAI), and soil organic carbon content. When the system detects attributes indicating adherence to a specific sustainable farming practice (e.g., low nitrogen runoff potential), it generates a "virtual coupon" which is a digital voucher for a government environmental subsidy. The transaction interface then reconciles a three-way transaction: (1) crediting the farmer's account with the subsidy value, (2) debiting the governmental agency's (e.g., USDA) disbursement account, and (3) crediting a carbon credit marketplace account based on the calculated carbon sequestration of the field.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Drone with Hyperspectral Sensor] -- Captures Data Cube --> B(Recognition Module);
      B -- Analyzes NDVI, LAI, etc. --> C{Derived Attributes: Sustainable Practice Confirmed};
      C -- Yes --> D[Virtual Coupon Generator];
      D -- Creates Subsidy Voucher --> E[Transaction Interface];
      E -- Reconciles Multi-Party Transaction --> F[Farmer Account: +Subsidy];
      E --> G[Government Agency Account: -Disbursement];
      E --> H[Carbon Marketplace Account: +Credits];
      C -- No --> I[Log Data for Review];
  

Derivative 1.2: Neuromorphic Processing for High-Frequency Trading Reconciliation

• Core Claim Basis: Claim 1 (Method), Claim 10 (Apparatus)

• Axis: Component Substitution / Operational Parameter Expansion

• Enabling Description: The recognition module is implemented on a dedicated neuromorphic processing unit (NPU) that processes market data as a series of asynchronous spikes (a "digital representation") rather than traditional time-series data. The "real-world object" is a specific arbitrage opportunity pattern detected within the spike train in sub-millisecond timeframes. The derived attributes are the pattern's characteristics: latency, involved securities, and predicted alpha. Upon recognition, a "virtual coupon" is generated, representing a pre-authorized risk limit for this specific trade. The system initiates the trades and reconciles the transaction in near-real-time across multiple accounts: (1) the firm's main trading account, (2) the trader's individual profit-and-loss (P&L) account, and (3) a clearing house's collateral account. The entire process from recognition to reconciliation occurs within a 10-millisecond latency budget.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant MarketData as Market Data Feed
      participant NPU as Neuromorphic Processor
      participant VCG as Virtual Coupon Generator
      participant TI as Transaction Interface
      participant ClearingHouse as Clearing House
  
      MarketData-->>NPU: Asynchronous Spike Train
      NPU->>NPU: Recognize Arbitrage Pattern (<1ms)
      NPU->>VCG: Send Pattern Attributes
      VCG->>TI: Generate Pre-Authorized Risk Limit
      TI->>MarketData: Execute Trades
      TI->>ClearingHouse: Reconcile P&L and Collateral
      ClearingHouse-->>TI: Confirmation
  

Derivative 1.3: Quantum Key Distribution for Secure Aerospace Maintenance Reconciliation

• Core Claim Basis: Claim 10 (Apparatus), Claim 18 (Fraud Mitigation)

• Axis: Component Substitution / Cross-Domain Application (Aerospace)

• Enabling Description: The transaction apparatus is a ruggedized tablet used for aircraft maintenance. The sensor is a high-resolution optical scanner. It recognizes a specific part (e.g., a turbine blade) by its laser-etched serial number matrix code. The transaction interface is substituted with a quantum key distribution (QKD) module for communication with the airline's and FAA's servers. This ensures the transaction data is immune to eavesdropping and future decryption by quantum computers. Upon authenticating the transaction (verifying part-to-plane pairing), the system credits a "target account" selected by the technician. The options include (1) a standard parts inventory account, (2) a specialized "experimental parts" tracking account for R&D, or (3) a third-party leasing company's account. This selection dictates the reconciliation logic.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> ScanningPart
      ScanningPart: Technician scans turbine blade
      ScanningPart --> Authenticating: Serial number recognized
      Authenticating: Generate Quantum Key via QKD
      Authenticating --> SelectingAccount: Secure Channel Established
      SelectingAccount: Technician selects target account (Inventory, R&D, Leasing)
      SelectingAccount --> Reconciling: Account selected
      Reconciling: Reconcile transaction with Airline, FAA, and Target Account servers
      Reconciling --> [*]
  

Derivative 1.4: Blockchain and IoT Integration for Pharmaceutical Cold Chain Verification

• Core Claim Basis: All Claims

• Axis: Integration with Emerging Tech

• Enabling Description: The method is integrated with an IoT and blockchain backend. A user (e.g., a pharmacist) uses a mobile device to scan a 2D barcode on a vaccine vial (the real-world object). The recognition module derives the batch number. This batch number is used to query a permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric) for the vial's immutable history, sourced from IoT sensors (temperature, shock) during its transit. The "derived attributes" are this complete provenance data. If the data confirms the cold chain was never broken, the virtual coupon generator creates a "co-pay reduction coupon" from the manufacturer. The transaction is reconciled via a smart contract that (1) credits the patient's insurance account, (2) credits the pharmacy's inventory account, and (3) debits the manufacturer's rebate account. The entire transaction history is appended to the vial's record on the blockchain.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph MobileDevice
          A[Scan Vaccine Barcode] --> B{Recognition Module};
      end
      subgraph Backend
          D[IoT Sensor Data] --> E(Permissioned Blockchain);
          C[Query Blockchain] --> F{Verify Cold Chain};
          G[Virtual Coupon Generator] --> H(Smart Contract);
      end
      B --> C;
      F -- Provenance OK --> G;
      H -- Executes Reconciliation --> I[Pharmacy Account];
      H --> J[Insurance Account];
      H --> K[Manufacturer Account];
      F -- Provenance Fail --> L[Flag for Quarantine];
  

Derivative 1.5: Failsafe "Ghost Coupon" Mode for Fraud Mitigation

• Core Claim Basis: Claim 18 (Fraud Mitigation)

• Axis: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

• Enabling Description: A method for mitigating transaction fraud where the recognition module assesses a confidence score for the object recognition. If the score is below a predefined threshold (e.g., < 95%), or if sensor data suggests a spoofing attempt (e.g., recognizing a 2D image on a screen instead of a 3D object), the system enters a failsafe mode. Instead of a real virtual coupon, it generates a "ghost coupon"—a non-functional placeholder visually identical to a real coupon. The system mimics engagement with an electronic transaction, but all reconciliation calls are routed to a sandboxed honeypot server that logs the attacker's behavior. No actual accounts are touched. The user is given a generic error message ("Coupon could not be applied at this time"), while the fraudulent attempt is flagged for security analysis.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Recognize Object] --> B{Confidence Score > 95%?};
      B -- Yes --> C[Generate Real Virtual Coupon];
      C --> D[Reconcile Live Accounts];
      B -- No --> E[Enter Failsafe Mode];
      E --> F[Generate 'Ghost Coupon' UI];
      F --> G[Route Transaction to Honeypot Server];
      G --> H[Log Attacker Behavior];
      H --> I[Display Generic Error to User];
  

---

Part 2: Combination Prior Art Scenarios

Combination 2.1: Implementation with OpenCV and ISO/IEC 18004 (QR Codes)

• Disclosure: A system where the recognition engine is explicitly implemented using the open-source OpenCV library to detect and decode QR codes (defined by the ISO/IEC 18004 standard). The "digital representation of a real-world object" is an image containing a QR code. The "derived attributes" are the data fields encoded within the QR code payload (e.g., a URL, product ID, and a vendor ID). Activating the virtual coupon involves the mobile device making an HTTP GET request to the URL from the QR code, which triggers the transaction and reconciliation process as described in the base patent. This combination renders the recognition and attribute derivation steps obvious to anyone skilled in the art of mobile application development.

Combination 2.2: Implementation with WebAuthn and W3C Payment Request API

• Disclosure: A method where the transaction authentication (as in Claim 18) is performed using the open WebAuthn (W3C standard) protocol. The user's mobile device acts as a FIDO2 authenticator. After the user selects a target account, the browser triggers the W3C Payment Request API. The user authorizes the transaction using device biometrics (e.g., fingerprint), which generates a signed assertion via WebAuthn. This cryptographically signed assertion, containing the transaction details and target account ID, is sent to the transaction reconciliation engine for verification. This combination makes the authentication step an implementation of existing, open web standards for secure payments.

Combination 2.3: Implementation with Hyperledger Fabric for Loyalty Point Exchange

• Disclosure: A system where the "multiple electronic accounts" are wallets on a Hyperledger Fabric permissioned blockchain network, and the "virtual coupon" represents a cross-chain atomic swap of loyalty points. A user scans a partner brand's product. The derived attributes identify the product and the partner. This triggers a chaincode (smart contract) that allows the user to select a target account (e.g., an airline miles program). The chaincode executes an atomic transaction, simultaneously debiting the partner brand's loyalty point pool and crediting the user's selected airline miles account, using a pre-defined exchange rate. This makes the multi-account reconciliation a direct application of open-source distributed ledger technology for asset exchange.