US 10937018

US patent 10937018, titled "Kit, system and associated method and service for providing a platform to prevent fraudulent financial transactions," was issued to Paygeo LLC. The inventor is Rabih S. Ballout. The filing date for this patent was September 1, 2020, and it was granted on March 2, 2021.

Abstract:
The patent describes a system, method, and service providing a platform for members to transfer, receive, or exchange cash in various international denominations and commodities (e.g., precious metals like gold, silver) within a highly secured mobile telecommunications environment. The system facilitates instant cash delivery between users and cash dispensing machines (ATMs) through secure transactions. Users can pay, receive, exchange, deposit, transfer, pay bills, exchange currency, retrieve cash, deposit cash, and create accounts using their mobile phone number or a system-generated code.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a system for financial transactions in a mobile telecommunications environment. It includes a mobile device for a user, a local transfer site (PayGeo platform) that communicates with the mobile device, and a payment interface enabling access to payment centers and ATMs. The mobile device is capable of downloading a mobile application, setting security levels (e.g., password, voice recognition, fingerprint, or DNA sample), storing financial account information, and selecting functions for transactions. The system allows users to pay, deposit, lend/borrow funds, and write checks using various methods like swiping gestures (Swipay), scannable codes, or direct transfers, and facilitates transactions with ATMs, including cash withdrawals and deposits for both PayGeo and non-PayGeo accounts.

• Claim 18: This claim details a method for financial transactions using a mobile device in a mobile telecommunications environment. The method involves logging into a PayGeo user account on a mobile device, activating a "PAY" function, identifying a target payee and a payment method. The payment method can include cash, commodities, coupons, PayGeo points, credit cards, or a PayGeo legal tender. The method enables direct payments to various entities (registered PayGeo members, contacts from a phone list, social network users, or non-registered persons/institutions) using a swiping gesture (Swipay) or by generating a scannable code. It also covers interacting with ATMs for cash withdrawals by transmitting login information or generating scannable codes, and for deposits into PayGeo or ATM accounts.

• Claim 20: This claim describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for financial transactions. The method includes logging into a user account, initializing a "PAY" application, identifying a target payee and payment method (cash, commodity, coupon, PayGeo points, credit card, or PayGeo legal tender). It enables payments via swiping or scannable codes to various recipients and facilitates cash withdrawals and deposits at ATMs using login information or scannable codes.

Litigation:
As of the current date, the patent family for US10937018B2 has litigation noted, including a PTAB case IPR2025-01553 which was filed but not instituted (procedural), and a US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:25-cv-00334). I do not have authoritative information on the status of the CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for patent 10937018 beyond what is mentioned on the Google Patents page.

The patent text itself provides initial leads for litigation. I've noted two specific cases: a PTAB IPR and a US District Court case.

1. PTAB Case:

• Case Number: IPR2025-01553
• Status noted in patent: Not Instituted - Procedural

2. US District Court Case:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00334
• Status noted in patent: "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court"

Now I will use the search results to populate the missing details and verify the information.

From the search results:

• For case 2:25-cv-00334 (Texas Eastern District Court):
  • Plaintiff(s): PayGeo, LLC
  • Defendant(s): [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) (specifically mentioning Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.)
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00334
  • Filing Date: April 1, 2025 or April 2, 2025 (There's a slight discrepancy in filing date between the snippets, with one saying April 1, 2025 and others April 2, 2025. I will list April 2, 2025 as it appears in multiple sources).
  • Outcome or Current Status: The case involves patent infringement claims. It appears to be an active case with scheduled events including a Claim Construction Hearing on October 21, 2026, and a Case Management Conference on March 15, 2027. One source indicates "Status Closed" for this case, which contradicts the upcoming event information. Given the mention of future hearing dates from multiple sources, it is more likely that the case is active or ongoing rather than closed, and the "Status Closed" might refer to a specific docket entry or an error. I will prioritize the information about future hearings as indicating an ongoing status.

I will explicitly state the conflict regarding the status. I don't have enough information from the provided snippets to determine the plaintiff/defendant for the PTAB IPR case IPR2025-01553 from the search results, only that the status is "Not Instituted - Procedural" as mentioned in the patent text itself. The searches for the IPR mostly confirm the case number but do not provide plaintiff/defendant in the snippets.
The Darts-IP link ("First worldwide family litigation filed") from the patent text requires further investigation to extract specific case details. I will mention it as a general family litigation without specific details as the snippets do not provide them.

Here's the compilation of the known litigation:

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 10937018:

1. US District Court Case:

   • Plaintiff(s): PayGeo, LLC
   • Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00334
   • Filing Date: April 2, 2025
   • Outcome or Current Status: The case involves patent infringement claims. It is currently ongoing with upcoming events, including a Claim Construction Hearing scheduled for October 21, 2026, and a Case Management Conference for March 15, 2027. One source indicates a "Closed" status, which appears to be contradicted by the scheduled future hearings.

2. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR):

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01553
   • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided snippets, but the case number implies a 2025 filing.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

3. Worldwide Family Litigation:

   • Outcome or Current Status: The patent family is noted as having "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to Darts-IP. Specific details (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome) for this general family litigation are not available in the provided search snippets.The user wants to know about litigation involving US patent 10937018. I have already identified two specific cases from the provided patent text and confirmed/extracted details for one of them (the district court case) using the search results. I also noted the PTAB case directly from the patent text.

Here's what I have so far:

1. US District Court Case:

   • Plaintiff(s): PayGeo, LLC
   • Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.)
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00334
   • Filing Date: April 2, 2025
   • Outcome or Current Status: Ongoing, patent infringement claims, with a Claim Construction Hearing on 10/21/2026 and Case Management Conference on 03/15/2027. There's a conflicting "Status Closed" in one snippet which seems incorrect given the scheduled future events.

2. PTAB Case:

   • Jurisdiction: PTAB
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01553
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the IPR number suggests 2025.
   • Outcome/Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

3. General "Family has litigation" / "First worldwide family litigation filed":

   • This is a general statement from the patent text, with a link to Darts-IP. The search results did not provide specific details (plaintiff, defendant, case number, filing date, outcome) for this broad category beyond what's already covered by the specific cases. I will mention that specific details are not readily available from the current search for this "family litigation".

I believe I have sufficient information to answer the user's request based on the provided patent text and the search results. I will structure the answer clearly, listing each known litigation and its details.Known litigation involving US patent 10937018 as of April 26, 2026, includes the following:

1. PayGeo, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

   • Plaintiff(s): PayGeo, LLC
   • Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00334
   • Filing Date: April 2, 2025
   • Outcome or Current Status: This case involves patent infringement claims and is currently ongoing. Scheduled events include a Claim Construction Hearing on October 21, 2026, and a Case Management Conference on March 15, 2027. While one snippet indicates a "Closed" status, this appears to be contradicted by the confirmed future hearing dates, suggesting the case is active.

2. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01553
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the case number suggests a 2025 filing.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

The patent document also broadly mentions "Family has litigation" and "First worldwide family litigation filed" linking to Darts-IP; however, specific details such as plaintiff(s), defendant(s), case number, filing date, and outcome for this broader category were not detailed in the provided search results beyond the specific cases listed above.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10937018, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This outcome means that the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits by the PTAB in this proceeding, thereby hardening the patent against the specific grounds raised by the petitioner.

IPR2025-01553 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Rabih S. Ballout

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-01
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the inter partes review.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not explicitly detailed in the provided data.
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition for inter partes review was denied institution on 2026-03-23. The denial was discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not provided in the structured data, but typically involves factors such as parallel district court litigation, advanced stage of litigation, or inefficient use of Board resources (e.g., Fintiv factors).
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable due to discretionary denial.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal on the merits of the claims, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means that the claims of US10937018 remain unchallenged on the merits by this IPR. A defendant facing assertion of this patent will find an IPR-based defense using the same grounds from this petition more challenging due to estoppel for the petitioner and its privies, and the patent owner can point to the denial as a sign of the patent's robustness. Future IPR petitions by other parties would need to present sufficiently distinct grounds or arguments to avoid similar discretionary denials.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10937018 remain UNTESTED on the merits through AIA trial proceedings, as the single IPR filed (IPR2025-01553) was denied institution. No claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01553 is relevant for the petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., and its privies. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), they are estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that they raised during the IPR or reasonably could have raised. For other potential defendants, the specific prior art grounds raised in IPR2025-01553 are still theoretically available for a new IPR petition, but such a petition would need to carefully address the reasoning for the discretionary denial to stand a chance of institution.

There is a pattern signal that Unified Patents has filed a PTAB case (IPR2025-01553). This suggests that the patent may be subject to assertion in district court, prompting defensive action from a patent quality organization. The denial of institution indicates a significant hurdle for challengers attempting to invalidate this patent through the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01553 resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, there is no Final Written Decision to cite regarding claim invalidation. The denial decision itself would be the key document.
• For a defendant facing assertion of US10937018, it would be crucial to obtain and analyze the full institution denial decision for IPR2025-01553. This decision would provide the PTAB's specific reasoning for the discretionary denial, which is essential for understanding the Board's posture and informing any potential new IPR strategy.
• If considering a new IPR, a defendant should carefully review the grounds presented in IPR2025-01553 and develop significantly different and strong arguments and prior art to avoid a similar discretionary denial, particularly if the denial was based on factors like Fintiv.## Proceedings overview
  There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10937018, IPR2025-01553, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This outcome means that the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits by the PTAB in this proceeding, thereby maintaining the patent's claims as unchallenged through this particular IPR. This gives the patent owner a strengthened defensive posture against the specific grounds raised.

IPR2025-01553 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Rabih S. Ballout

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-01
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the inter partes review on 2026-03-23.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided data. Further investigation would require accessing the full decision on the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS).
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. To determine the exact grounds, the petition documents would need to be retrieved from the USPTO's P-TACTS system.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-23. The denial was discretionary. While the specific reasoning for this IPR is not detailed in the provided information, discretionary denials by the PTAB often consider factors like parallel district court litigation, the stage of that litigation, or the Board's desire to avoid duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. The Director of the USPTO has centralized control over institution decisions and has issued numerous summary denials, making it challenging to ascertain the precise rationale without the full decision. The patent, US10937018, has a priority date of 2011-07-18 and was granted on 2021-03-02, making it over five years old as of the IPR filing, which could potentially factor into "settled expectations" considerations under PTAB policy.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable due to discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal on the merits of the claims, as no Final Written Decision was issued. Appeals related to discretionary denials themselves have generally been denied mandamus challenges by the Federal Circuit, holding that such challenges cannot be easily shoehorned into mandamus given the review bar for institution decisions.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means that the claims of US10937018 remain unchallenged on the merits by this IPR. For Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. and their privies, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would prevent them from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding. For other potential defendants, this outcome means the patent owner can point to the denial as a sign of the patent's resilience. Any future IPR petition by a different party challenging US10937018 would need to present robust new arguments and prior art, and also carefully address the potential for discretionary denial, particularly concerning any Fintiv or "settled expectations" factors that may have influenced the original denial.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10937018 remain UNTESTED on the merits through AIA trial proceedings, as the single IPR filed (IPR2025-01553) was denied institution. Consequently, no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01553 is specific to the petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., and their privies. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), these parties are legally barred from asserting, in future civil actions or other USPTO proceedings, any invalidity ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised during this IPR. For other defendants facing assertion of US10937018, the specific prior art and arguments presented in IPR2025-01553 are not directly subject to this statutory estoppel. However, any subsequent IPR petition by a different party would need to be mindful of the PTAB's evolving policies on discretionary denials, especially those related to parallel litigation (the Fintiv factors) and patent age ("settled expectations"), which have become stricter.

The filing of IPR2025-01553 by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (a large operating company) suggests that US10937018 may be involved in or relevant to ongoing or anticipated litigation. The fact that the IPR was denied institution, rather than reaching a Final Written Decision, indicates a significant hurdle for challengers seeking to invalidate the patent via the PTAB, particularly in the current PTAB climate which has seen an increased rate of discretionary denials.

Recommended next steps

• For any defendant facing assertion of US10937018, the most critical next step is to obtain and thoroughly review the complete institution denial decision for IPR2025-01553. This document, accessible through the USPTO's P-TACTS system, will articulate the precise reasons for the discretionary denial (e.g., Fintiv factors, "settled expectations," or other considerations). Understanding this reasoning is essential for assessing the viability of any new IPR petition and for crafting a defensive strategy that avoids the pitfalls encountered by Samsung.
• Given the trend of increased discretionary denials and the lack of detailed reasoning in many summary denials, careful consideration must be given to the timing of any new IPR petition in relation to parallel district court litigation, if applicable. Petitioners are increasingly required to address "settled expectations" and may need to offer specific stipulations to avoid discretionary denial.

Inventors

• Rabih S. Ballout (Individual)

Original assignee

The original assignee is listed as "Individual" on Google Patents and "Paygeo LLC" as the current assignee. The patent describes a "PayGeo service" and "PayGeo platform" for financial transactions, including transferring cash and digital currency, redeeming coupons, and managing finances. It's unclear if PayGeo LLC shipped a product embodying the claims at the time of the original filing or issuance.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-10-18 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-18 — Reel 063717/0126

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Rabih S. Ballout
  • Assignee: Paygeo LLC
  • Correspondent: Firas Samiat, Samiat & Associates PC, 1727 R ST. NW, Washington, DC 20009. This correspondent has not recurred in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer to operating company

• 2025-03-25 (executed) / recorded 2025-03-25 — Reel 064284/0488

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Paygeo LLC
  • Assignee: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, AS SECURITY HOLDER
  • Correspondent: William C. Rowland, Law Office of William Rowland PC, 15436 N. Florida Ave. STE 103, Lutterbach, FL 33549. This correspondent has not recurred in this chain.
  • Context: Securitization

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10937018
    2020 : Application filed
    2021 : Issued to Paygeo LLC
    2024 : Assigned to Paygeo LLC
    2025 : Securitized to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The initial assignment is from an individual to Paygeo LLC. While "LLC" can suggest a shell entity, without further information on Paygeo LLC's operations or address, it's not possible to definitively label it as a shell. The securitization to "Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, AS SECURITY HOLDER" in 2025-03-25 also does not definitively indicate a shell entity for assertion purposes, as security agreements can be part of normal business operations.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Paygeo LLC nor Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC appear on public NPE lists as of today's date.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Different correspondents are listed for the two recorded assignments. Firas Samiat of Samiat & Associates PC is listed for the 2024-10-18 assignment, and William C. Rowland of Law Office of William Rowland PC is listed for the 2025-03-25 security agreement.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two recorded transfers, not multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs within a short period.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the Google Patents page mentions litigation, it states "First worldwide family litigation filed" and "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court" in 2025. The securitization event to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC occurred on 2025-03-25, which is less than 6 months before May 25, 2026. However, the exact filing date of the first suit is not provided in the readily available information, and it is unclear if the securitization directly preceded litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of the original assignee or any subsequent assignors filing for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence in the assignment records or Google Patents suggests privateering activity.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While there is an assignment from an individual to an LLC (Paygeo LLC) and a subsequent security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, there are no strong, definitive signals to confidently categorize this as an NPE pattern. The information available about the operating status of Paygeo LLC is limited, and there is no recurrence of correspondents or evidence of cascading transfers to known asserters. The timing of the securitization relative to the reported litigation is suggestive but not conclusive without more precise dates.

https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US patent 10937018, based on its own citations and disclosures.

US Patent 10937018, titled "Kit, system and associated method and service for providing a platform to prevent fraudulent financial transactions," describes a system and method for executing financial transactions. The core invention, as described in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, involves a mobile transaction platform that stores user account balances, receives fund transfer requests from a first user, generates a scannable transaction code for the request, transmits this code to the first user's mobile device for display, and enables the first user to effect an automatic fund transfer or withdrawal by scanning the code at a cash dispensing machine (ATM). The system then adjusts account balances and instructs the ATM to deliver the funds to the second user (or the first user for withdrawal).

The most relevant prior art cited within US10937018 itself are its direct patent family predecessors and two additional patent applications mentioned in the background.

Most Relevant Prior Art

The most relevant prior art for US10937018 is U.S. Pat. No. 8,554,671, as it is an ancestral patent within the same family, and its underlying application is explicitly incorporated by reference, meaning its disclosure is considered part of the current patent's effective disclosure from the priority date.

1. U.S. Pat. No. 8,554,671 to Ballout
   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 8,554,671 B2, titled "System and associated method and service for providing a platform that allows for the exchange of cash between members in a mobile environment," issued October 8, 2013, to Rabih S. Ballout.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed July 18, 2011; Published October 8, 2013.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for exchanging cash, commodities, or other valuables between members in a mobile environment. It emphasizes enabling users to transfer, receive, or exchange cash in various international denominations and commodities. Crucially, the patent states it is "capable of delivering cash instantly between two or more users by allowing the exchange of secure transactions between system and cash dispensing machines (ATMs)." Furthermore, it highlights the ability to "retrieve (withdraw) or deposit cash in an ATM (cash dispensing machine) environment using various code generation methods or SMS," where "The codes appear on the mobile screen and allow recognition of the sender and receiver parties, and adjust account balances accordingly."
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US8554671 is a direct ancestor of US10937018, with its application (Ser. No. 13/185,432) incorporated by reference. This means its entire disclosure is considered part of the current patent's effective disclosure as of the earliest priority date (July 18, 2011).
     The core elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 of US10937018 (system/method for financial transactions via a mobile transaction platform, using a mobile device, and interacting with an ATM for fund transfer/withdrawal) appear to be directly disclosed or strongly implied by US8554671. Specifically, US8554671's disclosure of "code generation methods or SMS" that result in "codes appear[ing] on the mobile screen" for use with ATMs to "retrieve (withdraw) or deposit cash" and "adjust account balances accordingly" directly anticipates the concept of generating a "scannable transaction code" on a mobile device for ATM interaction. The term "scannable" would be inherent to codes intended for use with ATMs, especially given the patent family's broader disclosure about "2D or 3D bar/matrix/QR/maxi codes, SMS etc., so that the resulting codes may be read by, for example: smart phones, scanner, cashier scanners, instruments with compatible software, etc.". Therefore, US8554671 potentially anticipates Claims 1, 8, and 15, and by extension, their dependent claims (2-7, 9-14), as the elements describing the generation and use of a mobile-displayed code for ATM cash transactions and subsequent account adjustments are substantially present in its disclosure.

Other Cited Prior Art

1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0068982 to Chen et al.

   • Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0068982 A1, titled "System and method for securing wireless digital transactions," published March 12, 2009, by Chen et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed September 10, 2007; Published March 12, 2009.
   • Brief Description: This application describes a system and method for facilitating secure wireless digital transactions. A mobile device uses a mobile payment card (m-card) linked to an account and employs public-key cryptography (PKC) to securely and wirelessly transmit payment to a terminal component for goods or services.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Chen et al. focuses on general wireless digital transactions for goods or services to a "terminal component" using cryptographic methods. It does not explicitly disclose the generation of a scannable code on a mobile device's screen for interaction with a cash dispensing machine (ATM) to enable cash withdrawals, deposits, or transfers to a second user, which is a key distinguishing feature of US10937018's claims. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate Claims 1, 8, or 15 of US10937018.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0010191 to Rackley III et al.

   • Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0010191 A1, titled "Methods and systems for providing financial payments via a mobile device," published January 10, 2008, by Rackley III et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed July 6, 2006; Published January 10, 2008.
   • Brief Description: This application generally describes methods and systems for providing financial payments to a payee using a mobile device. A user inputs payee, payment source, and payment method information into the mobile device, which generates and wirelessly communicates a mobile payment instruction to a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS). The MFTS then generates and communicates an MFTS payment instruction to a payment instruction recipient, which effects payment to the identified payee without requiring any action by the payee.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Rackley III et al. describes a system for facilitating payments via mobile devices by sending payment instructions to a central system. While it involves mobile payments, it lacks the specific mechanism of generating a scannable transaction code on the mobile device for scanning at an ATM to perform cash-related transactions (withdrawals, deposits, transfers to another user via the ATM). The payments are effected by a "payment instruction recipient" typically without payee action, suggesting a backend processing rather than a physical interaction with a cash dispensing machine based on a scanned code. Thus, it is unlikely to anticipate Claims 1, 8, or 15 of US10937018.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10937018 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US Patent 10937018 (hereinafter '018 patent) based solely on the prior art references explicitly identified within its "Prior Art" section: U.S. patent application No. 20090068982 to Chen et al. (hereinafter '982 application) and U.S. patent application No. 20080010191 to Rackley III et al. (hereinafter '191 application). The effective filing date for the '018 patent is noted as 2011-07-18, derived from its earliest priority claim.

I. General Inventive Concept of US10937018

The '018 patent describes a system, method, network, and service (collectively referred to as "PayGeo") for executing financial transactions. Key aspects include:

• A platform enabling members to transfer, receive, or exchange cash and digital currency in various international denominations and commodities (e.g., precious metals) in a mobile telecommunications environment.
• Highly secured telecommunications environment, potentially using DNA verification.
• Instant cash delivery between users and cash dispensing machines (ATMs) via secure transactions and code generation (SMS, scannable codes).
• Creation of mobile accounts from cash deposits.
• Saving and tracking rebate/discount coupons and receipts, and accumulating points.
• A "Good Deal" application and "Good Money" digital currency backed by commodities.
• Digital wallet features replacing a physical wallet, storing credit cards, identification, mileage cards, etc., via scanning, swiping, manual entry, and voice recognition.
• Payment functions using "Swipay" or "Swipmail" for direct or remote transfers, including to scanners.
• Profile-based custom advertisement pushes and interactive search advertisement pulls (e.g., "Good Deals" on a GPS map).
• Advanced usage data management and analysis for user profiling and targeted advertising.

II. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

1. U.S. patent application No. 20090068982 to Chen et al. ('982 application):

   • Describes a system and method for facilitating secure wireless digital transactions.
   • Involves a terminal component receiving payment data for goods or services.
   • A mobile device includes a mobile payment card (m-card) linked to an account.
   • The mobile device uses public-key cryptography (PKC) to securely and wirelessly transmit payment to the terminal component.

2. U.S. patent application No. 20080010191 to Rackley III et al. ('191 application):

   • Describes methods and systems for providing financial payments to a payee using a mobile device or a wireless connected personal digital assistant (PDA).
   • The user inputs payee, payment source, and payment method information into the mobile device.
   • The mobile device generates and wirelessly communicates a mobile payment instruction to a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS).
   • The MFTS generates and communicates an MFTS payment instruction to a payment instruction recipient, identifying the payment source, amount, payee, and payment method.
   • The payment instruction recipient effects payment to the identified payee without required action by the payee.

III. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA)

A POSA in the context of the '018 patent's effective filing date (July 18, 2011) would be someone with a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, along with several years of experience in developing mobile applications, financial transaction systems, or secure data communication technologies. This person would be familiar with mobile operating systems, wireless communication protocols, cryptography, database management, and common practices in electronic commerce and banking.

IV. Motivation to Combine Prior Art References

A POSA would have been motivated to combine the '982 application and the '191 application to address the known shortcomings in mobile financial transactions and to create a more comprehensive and versatile digital wallet solution, a need explicitly identified in the background of the '018 patent. The '018 patent notes that while prior art solutions address electronic payments, they "do not dispense with the use of cash" and still require consumers to carry physical currency, indicating a clear, unsatisfied need for a true electronic wallet.

The motivation to combine would stem from the desire to:

1. Enhance Security in Broader Mobile Payments: The '982 application provides explicit teaching on using public-key cryptography (PKC) for secure wireless digital transactions to a terminal component. The '191 application describes a system for initiating financial payments to a payee (who could be another individual or institution) using a mobile device and a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS). A POSA would recognize the benefit of applying the robust security mechanisms (like PKC) taught by Chen to the broader mobile payment initiation and processing capabilities described by Rackley. This combination would result in a more secure system for a wider range of mobile-initiated payments.
2. Develop a Comprehensive Mobile Payment Solution: The '982 application focuses on secure payments to a terminal for goods/services, while the '191 application focuses on payments to payees where the MFTS effects the payment. By combining these, a POSA would create a more complete mobile payment platform that can handle both point-of-sale transactions and peer-to-peer or person-to-institution transfers, addressing the need for a "true electronic wallet" that replaces the physical one, as articulated in the '018 patent's background.

V. Obviousness Analysis of the '018 Patent's General Inventive Concept

Given the combination of the '982 and '191 applications, and general knowledge in the art, many features of the '018 patent's general inventive concept would have been obvious to a POSA:

1. Transfer, Receive, Exchange Cash/Digital Currency in a Mobile Telecommunications Environment: Both '982 and '191 applications describe digital transactions and payments using mobile devices. Extending this to cover various international denominations, digital currencies, and the concept of "cash" being represented digitally within such a system is a straightforward application of known financial principles to mobile platforms. The '191 application already deals with payments of "an amount" from a "payment source".
2. Highly Secured Telecommunications Environment: The '982 application explicitly teaches secure wireless transmission using public-key cryptography. A POSA seeking to further enhance security, as the '018 patent itself prioritizes, would naturally consider incorporating advanced authentication methods. While DNA verification (as mentioned in '018 patent) is a specific, robust biometric, the general idea of integrating stronger user authentication (e.g., fingerprints, voice recognition) into a secure mobile transaction system would be an obvious design choice driven by the constant need for improved security in financial technologies.
3. Interaction with ATMs for Cash Withdrawal/Deposit via Codes: The '018 patent's background specifically highlights the limitation of ATMs not serving non-customers. A POSA, striving to create a comprehensive mobile financial platform as motivated above, would find it obvious to extend the mobile payment instructions (from '191 application) and secure wireless transactions (from '982 application) to interact with ATMs. Enabling ATM interaction via generated codes (e.g., SMS, scannable barcodes) would be a logical technical solution to overcome the identified limitation and allow mobile users to access physical cash directly through the digital platform, thereby fulfilling the desire for a truly cashless and cash-accessible digital wallet.
4. Saving/Tracking Coupons, Discounts, Receipts, and Accumulating Points: Integrating loyalty programs, coupon management, and digital receipt storage into a mobile payment system was a well-known trend in mobile commerce and loyalty programs by 2011. Creating a "digital wallet" that replaces physical items naturally includes these elements. A POSA would find it obvious to add these features to a combined mobile payment platform (from '982 and '191 applications) to provide a complete replacement for a physical wallet and enhance user engagement.
5. Digital Wallet Features (Storing card info via scanning/swiping): The explicit goal of replacing the physical wallet, as stated in the '018 patent's background, would motivate a POSA to include functionality for digitizing the contents of a wallet. Storing information from credit cards, IDs, etc., via common input methods like scanning (e.g., optical character recognition for cards) or manual entry, and managing them within a secure mobile application (as enabled by the combined prior art), would be an obvious design choice for achieving this goal.
6. "Swipay" or "Swipmail" Payment Functions: The '982 application details "securely and wirelessly transmit[ting] the payment". The '191 application involves "wirelessly communicate[ing] the mobile payment instruction". Implementing specific user interface gestures (like "swiping a finger") or communication methods (like email or SMS for "Swipmail") to trigger these wireless transmissions is a matter of design and common mobile application development, rather than a non-obvious invention, especially in the context of NFC and other proximity-based communication being developed at the time.
7. Location-Based "Good Deals" and Targeted Advertising: Mobile devices inherently possess GPS capabilities. The integration of location-based services with commerce (e.g., finding nearby deals) and targeted advertising based on user profiles is a standard practice in mobile marketing and would be an obvious enhancement to any mobile commerce platform seeking to attract users and generate revenue.
8. Usage Data Management and Analysis for User Profiling: Tracking user behavior and transaction data for profiling, to enable targeted advertisements and improve service offerings, is a well-established practice in online and mobile services. Integrating such analytical capabilities into a mobile financial transaction platform (derived from the combination of '982 and '191 applications) would be an obvious step for any developer aiming to optimize and monetize their service.

VI. Conclusion

Based on the analysis of the '982 application by Chen et al. and the '191 application by Rackley III et al., a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to create a comprehensive, secure mobile payment and digital wallet system. The '982 application provides the secure wireless transaction foundation, while the '191 application offers the framework for diverse mobile-initiated payments. By combining these, and applying general knowledge in mobile technology, security, and commerce, many of the broad concepts and features of US10937018, particularly those related to secure mobile financial transactions, digital wallet functionality, and integration with common commercial and banking features like coupons and ATMs, would have been obvious.

For US Patent 10937018, here's a detailed breakdown of its term adjustments, family members, and projected expiration date:

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): The '018 patent, having an application filing date of September 1, 2020, is eligible for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). PTA is granted to compensate patent applicants for certain delays incurred by the USPTO during the prosecution of a patent application. These delays typically involve the USPTO failing to meet specific deadlines, such as issuing a first Office Action within 14 months of filing, responding to an applicant's reply within four months, or issuing the patent within three years of the filing date. The provided information does not explicitly state the calculated PTA for US10937018. To determine the exact PTA, the patent's file wrapper in Patent Center would need to be reviewed.
• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): Patent Term Extensions (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156 are typically available for patents covering certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products. PTE aims to restore patent term lost due to delays in receiving premarket government approval from a regulatory agency like the FDA. The '018 patent, which pertains to financial transactions, does not fall into these categories. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to have received or be eligible for a Patent Term Extension.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: A continuation application shares the same disclosure as its parent but pursues different claims, with no new subject matter added. US10937018 is itself a continuation patent application, as indicated by its cross-reference to related applications. It is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/882,006, filed May 22, 2020 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,796,296). This chain of continuations extends back to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/185,432, filed July 18, 2011 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,554,671), which represents the earliest priority date for the patent family.
• Divisional Applications: A divisional application arises when the USPTO issues a restriction requirement, determining that a single application contains two or more independent and distinct inventions. A divisional application also cannot contain any new matter and all claims are entitled to the filing date of the parent application. There is no explicit mention of US10937018 being a divisional application, nor is there any indication that it arose from a restriction requirement. The patent's lineage primarily indicates continuation applications.

Related Family Members

Based on the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section, US10937018 is part of a patent family with a complex priority chain:

• US 10,796,296 B2: (Parent of US10937018) "Kit, System and Associated Method and Service for Providing a Platform to Prevent Fraudulent Financial Transactions," filed May 22, 2020.
• US 10,733,593 B2: "Kit, System and Associated Method and Service for Providing a Platform to Prevent Fraudulent Financial Transactions," filed Oct. 17, 2017.
• US 2015/0227913 A1: (Abandoned application) "Kit, System and Associated Method and Service for Providing a Platform to Prevent Fraudulent Financial Transactions," filed Apr. 20, 2015.
• US 2014/0058944 A1: (Abandoned application) "Kit, System and Associated Method and Service for Providing a Platform to Prevent Fraudulent Financial Transactions," filed Aug. 23, 2013.
• US 8,554,671 B2: "System and Associated Method and Service for Providing a Platform that Allows for the Exchange of Cash Between Members in a Mobile Environment," filed Jul. 18, 2011. This patent (US8554671) represents the earliest priority date in this family.
• US 20210004783A1: (Other version listed on Google Patents, a publication of US17/009,551, which is the application for US10937018).
• US 11087307B2
• US 12014347B2
• US 12462240B2

Projected Expiration Date

The term for a U.S. patent is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest-filed non-provisional application in the family. For US10937018, the earliest priority date is July 18, 2011, from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/185,432 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,554,671).

Therefore, the anticipated expiration date for US10937018, without considering any PTA, would be 20 years from July 18, 2011.

• Earliest Priority Date: July 18, 2011
• Base Expiration Date (20 years from priority): July 18, 2031

The Google Patents page itself lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2031-07-18. This aligns with the 20-year term from the earliest priority date. Any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) would extend this date, but the specific PTA amount is not provided.