US 11461828

Patent Overview: US 11,461,828 B2

Title: System and method for receiving data at a merchant device from a user device over a wireless link

Assignee: Monticello Enterprises LLC

Inventors: Thomas M. Isaacson, Ryan Connell Durham

Filing Date: January 25, 2022

Issue Date: October 4, 2022

Abstract:
The patent describes a system and method for a unified approach to online searching and purchasing. It details a method where a user can input a search query into a single field on a user device. This input is then analyzed to determine the user's intent, such as whether they wish to perform a general search or make a purchase. Based on this analysis, the system presents various options to the user, including one-click purchase options from different merchants. The technology aims to streamline the online shopping process by reducing the number of steps required to go from a search query to a completed purchase. It also covers the use of wireless links for transmitting payment data between a user's device and a merchant's device.

Plain-Language Summary of Independent Claims:

Claim 1: A method for a user device to interact with a merchant device. The user device establishes a wireless connection with the merchant device based on a single action or gesture. It then receives purchase information from the merchant, displays it, and awaits a single interaction from the user to confirm the purchase. Upon confirmation, the user device sends payment information to the merchant to complete the transaction.

Claim 10: A user device configured to simplify purchases. The device has a processor and memory with instructions that, when executed, allow it to connect to a merchant device wirelessly with a single user action. It receives details about a potential purchase, shows these details on its display, and then, with a single confirmation from the user, retrieves stored payment information and sends it to the merchant to finalize the purchase.

Claim 16: A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for a user device. These instructions enable the device to establish a wireless link to a merchant's device through a simple user action. The device then gets purchase data from the merchant, displays it, and waits for a single user interaction to authorize payment. Once authorized, it sends the user's payment details to the merchant to complete the sale.

Litigation Status:

A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for the year 2026 for "11461828" did not yield any specific results. This suggests that, as of the current date, there is no public record of this patent being the subject of an appeal in the CAFC in 2026. However, this does not preclude the possibility of litigation in other courts or at different times. The patent's own information indicates a history of litigation in the Texas Western District Court, with cases filed in 2023.

As of May 5, 2026, U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 is known to be involved in the following litigation, all filed by the assignee Monticello Enterprises LLC:

Monticello Enterprises LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

• Plaintiff: Monticello Enterprises LLC
• Defendant: Apple Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 6:23-cv-00761
• Filing Date: October 20, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: The case is currently active. The lawsuit alleges that Apple's "Apple Pay" feature infringes on the patent's claims related to wireless data transmission for purchases.

Monticello Enterprises LLC v. [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)

• Plaintiff: Monticello Enterprises LLC
• Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 6:23-cv-00763
• Filing Date: October 20, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: This case is ongoing. The complaint asserts that Samsung's "Samsung Pay" technology utilizes methods protected by U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828.

Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Google LLC

• Plaintiff: Monticello Enterprises LLC
• Defendant: Google LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 6:23-cv-00753
• Filing Date: October 20, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: This litigation is active. Monticello Enterprises alleges that "Google Pay" infringes upon the patent's system for completing purchases via a wireless link between a user device and a merchant device.

These cases were all filed on the same day in the same jurisdiction, suggesting a coordinated litigation campaign by the patent holder, Monticello Enterprises LLC, against major mobile payment providers. The current status for all these cases is active and ongoing.

Proceedings overview

As of May 30, 2026, a search for AIA trial proceedings related to U.S. Patent 11,461,828 indicates there are no PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings on file. This suggests that the patent has not yet been challenged through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review. The patent therefore remains untested at the PTAB, meaning all claims are currently sustained and subject to direct assertion.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,461,828 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. There are no claims that have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED through an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.

Given the absence of PTAB activity, there is no estoppel landscape established under § 315(e)(2). Therefore, any potential defendant facing assertion of this patent is not barred from raising any prior-art grounds that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The prior art discussed in the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" sections of this analysis (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,734,510 (Ayoub et al.), U.S. Patent No. 9,633,293 (Chaudhri), U.S. Patent No. 8,639,634 (Halla et al.), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226759 (Rastogi et al.)) remains fully available for use in any future PTAB petition or district court defense.

The lack of PTAB activity, despite ongoing litigation against major mobile payment providers (Apple, Samsung, Google), is a notable signal. Well-asserted patents often become targets for IPRs or other AIA trials, particularly if there are strong prior art arguments. The absence could indicate several possibilities, such as: (1) the ongoing district court cases are in early stages where PTAB challenges have not yet matured or been strategically filed; (2) potential petitioners have not yet identified sufficiently strong grounds for invalidity that meet the PTAB's institution standards; or (3) there might be strategic reasons (e.g., settlement discussions, other defensive maneuvers) for delaying or avoiding PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity on file for U.S. Patent 11,461,828, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider the following steps:

1. Conduct a comprehensive prior art search: Revisit and expand upon the prior art analysis to identify any additional art not considered during patent prosecution that could form strong grounds for an IPR, PGR, or CBM petition.
2. Evaluate filing an AIA trial petition: If strong prior art is identified, assess the viability of filing an IPR (or PGR/CBM if applicable based on filing dates and patent type) against the claims being asserted. This could provide an efficient way to challenge patent validity in parallel with district court litigation.
3. Monitor for new PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system for any new filings against U.S. Patent 11,461,828, as this landscape can change rapidly.
4. Leverage existing prior art analysis: Utilize the detailed prior art review (Ayoub et al., Chaudhri, Halla et al., Rastogi et al.) and obviousness analysis from earlier in this report to inform any validity challenges in district court or in a future PTAB petition. The arguments regarding "single function action" and "single-interaction confirmation" against the cited prior art remain pertinent.

The absence of PTAB proceedings means that the patent owner, Monticello Enterprises LLC, has not yet had to defend the patent's claims at the PTAB, and thus, the patent's validity has not been tested in this forum. This presents both an opportunity (for a new petitioner) and a challenge (as no claims have been definitively invalidated).

Proceedings overview

As of May 30, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent 11,461,828 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means all claims of the patent are currently sustained and untested by the PTAB, giving a defendant no PTAB-based invalidity findings to leverage in its defensive posture.

There are no individual proceedings to report on, as none were found via the USPTO Open Data Portal API or subsequent web searches on USPTO PTAB Decisions.

Strategic summary

All claims of U.S. Patent 11,461,828 are currently UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED through any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.

Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) are not yet applicable. This means that a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent is not estopped from raising any prior-art grounds that they might bring in a future PTAB petition or district court challenge. All prior art references (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,734,510 (Ayoub et al.), U.S. Patent No. 9,633,293 (Chaudhri), U.S. Patent No. 8,639,634 (Halla et al.), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226759 (Rastogi et al.)) discussed in the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" sections of this analysis remain fully available.

The absence of PTAB activity, despite the patent being actively asserted in district court against prominent companies like Apple, Samsung, and Google, is a notable observation. While it is not uncommon for litigation strategies to unfold over time, the lack of immediate PTAB challenges could suggest that potential petitioners have not yet identified sufficiently strong grounds for invalidity that meet the PTAB's institution thresholds, or that other strategic considerations are at play in the ongoing district court cases.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 11,461,828, a defendant should consider the following:

• Comprehensive Prior Art Review: Given the aggressive assertion of this patent, conducting an even deeper and broader prior art search is critical. The goal would be to identify any highly relevant prior art that may have been overlooked during the initial examination or that could form compelling grounds for an AIA trial.
• Evaluation of an AIA Trial Petition: If a strong prior art reference or combination is found, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition should be seriously considered. IPRs can offer a faster and often less expensive route to challenging patent validity compared to district court litigation, though the institution threshold and claim construction standards differ.
• Continuous Monitoring: Actively monitor the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for any new IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions filed against U.S. Patent 11,461,828 by any party. The first to file with strong grounds may set the tone for all subsequent challenges.
• Leverage Existing Analysis for District Court: Even without PTAB proceedings, the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" analyses already performed remain valuable for formulating invalidity defenses in district court. These analyses highlight potential weaknesses in the patent's claims based on previously considered and related art.

Inventors

• Thomas M. Isaacson (Employer at time of filing: Undeterminable from patent document)
• Ryan Connell Durham (Employer at time of filing: Undeterminable from patent document)

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent, US 11461828B2, is Monticello Enterprises LLC. It is not clear from the patent document or general knowledge whether Monticello Enterprises LLC ships a product embodying the claims or their primary line of business. The current status of Monticello Enterprises LLC (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is also not determinable from the patent document.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Assignment Center for patent number 11461828 reveals only the original assignment from the inventors to Monticello Enterprises LLC. There are no subsequent assignments recorded for this patent.

• 2022-01-25 (executed) / recorded 2022-01-25 — Reel 060593/0096
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: DURHAM, RYAN CONNELL; ISAACSON, THOMAS M.
  • Assignee: MONTICELLO ENTERPRISES LLC
  • Correspondent: B & E LEGAL
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11461828
    2014 : Filed earliest priority application
    2022 : Assigned to Monticello Enterprises LLC
         : Issued
    2023 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. Monticello Enterprises LLC is the original assignee. While the name "Monticello Enterprises LLC" might suggest a non-operating entity, there's no direct evidence in the patent record or readily available public information (such as products embodying the claims or registered-agent addresses) to definitively classify it as a shell entity solely based on the patent assignment record. There are multiple entities named "Monticello Enterprises LLC" with varying statuses, including "InActive" in Florida, which makes it difficult to pinpoint without more specific identification. Other Monticello-named companies appear to sell physical goods (e.g., Monticello Shop, Monticello Soap Company), but it is not clear if these are related to the assignee of this patent.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Monticello Enterprises LLC is identified as a high-frequency plaintiff by Unified Patents in the ongoing litigation involving this patent.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, so there is no chain to observe recurrence. The correspondent for the initial assignment is B & E Legal.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The original assignment from the inventors to Monticello Enterprises LLC occurred on January 25, 2022, and the patent was issued on October 4, 2022. The infringement suits were filed on October 20, 2023, which is more than 6 months after the patent issuance and the initial assignment. However, this is the original assignment and not a subsequent transfer to an asserting entity immediately before litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of the original assignee being in bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no public information to suggest that Monticello Enterprises LLC is asserting patents on behalf of another operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

This verdict is based on the fact that Monticello Enterprises LLC, the current assignee, is actively asserting the patent in litigation against major companies (Apple, Samsung, Google). While there isn't definitive evidence of a shell entity transfer within the recorded assignments, the aggressive assertion strategy against large operating companies, as well as the listing of an "InActive" Monticello Enterprises LLC in Florida, suggests an NPE pattern. The absence of clear product offerings directly tied to this specific Monticello Enterprises LLC further contributes to this assessment.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and search for patent number 11461828.

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828

As a senior patent analyst, a thorough review of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 is essential to understand the landscape and potential vulnerabilities of its claims. This analysis focuses on the references cited by the USPTO examiner, as these were deemed most relevant to the patentability of the invention.

The independent claims of the '828 patent (claims 1, 10, and 16) center on a method and system for conducting a purchase transaction between a user's mobile device and a merchant's device. The key elements of these claims are:

1. Establishing a wireless link: The connection is initiated by a "gesture or a single function action" from the user.
2. Receiving purchase data: The user's device receives transaction details from the merchant's device.
3. Displaying the purchase data: The user is shown the details of the potential purchase on their device.
4. Single-interaction confirmation: The user confirms the purchase with a single interaction, which also acts as a security measure.
5. Transmitting payment data: The user's device sends stored payment information to the merchant to complete the transaction.

Below is an analysis of the most pertinent prior art and its potential to anticipate the claims of the '828 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Detailed Prior Art Review

1. U.S. Patent No. 9,734,510 (Ayoub et al.)

• Full Citation: US 9,734,510 B2
• Publication Date: August 15, 2017
• Filing Date: March 21, 2013
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for conducting mobile payments using a mobile device. A user can initiate a transaction by bringing their mobile device in proximity to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal. The mobile device displays the transaction details, and the user can confirm the payment, often with a single tap or biometric verification.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 10, and 16: Ayoub et al. disclose a system with strong similarities to the '828 patent. The initiation of the transaction by bringing the device near a terminal could be interpreted as a "gesture or a single function action." The patent also details the display of transaction information and user confirmation. The primary question for an anticipation argument would be whether the confirmation step in Ayoub et al. constitutes a "single-interaction" as claimed in the '828 patent and if the communication establishment is based on that single action.

2. U.S. Patent No. 9,633,293 (Chaudhri)

• Full Citation: US 9,633,293 B2
• Publication Date: April 25, 2017
• Filing Date: September 11, 2015
• Brief Description: This patent, assigned to [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), focuses on user interfaces for mobile payment systems. It describes methods for securely storing and using payment credentials on a mobile device. A key feature is the ability to select a payment card and authorize a transaction with a single action, such as a fingerprint scan (Touch ID), while the device is near an NFC-enabled terminal.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 10, and 16: Chaudhri's disclosure of using a fingerprint scan for simultaneous authentication and payment confirmation strongly aligns with the "single-interaction" element of the '828 patent's claims. The context of this action occurring when the device is near a merchant terminal covers the wireless link and data exchange aspects. The details of the user interface also address the display of purchase information.

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,639,634 (Halla et al.)

• Full Citation: US 8,639,634 B2
• Publication Date: January 28, 2014
• Filing Date: October 8, 2008
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a system for managing and conducting transactions using a mobile device. It describes a "digital wallet" that can be used for payments. The user can initiate a payment by selecting a virtual card and bringing the device near a reader. The system includes steps for transaction authorization by the user.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 10, and 16: Halla et al. describe many of the core functionalities of the '828 patent. The initiation of a transaction through proximity and the subsequent user authorization process are central to this prior art. An argument for anticipation would depend on whether the specific user actions described in Halla et al. can be considered equivalent to the "single function action" and "single-interaction" of the '828 patent's claims.

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226759 (Rastogi et al.)

• Full Citation: US 2013/0226759 A1
• Publication Date: August 29, 2013
• Filing Date: February 28, 2012
• Brief Description: This application describes a method for facilitating mobile payments where a user's device communicates with a merchant's system. It details the process of receiving transaction information, displaying it for the user's review, and receiving a confirmation to proceed with the payment.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1, 10, and 16: Rastogi et al. provide a detailed description of the transaction flow, including the key steps of receiving, displaying, and confirming purchase data on a mobile device. The relevance of this reference would hinge on how broadly the terms "gesture" and "single-interaction" in the '828 patent are interpreted, and whether the methods described by Rastogi et al. fall within those interpretations.

Summary of Analysis

The prior art cited against U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828, particularly the patents by Ayoub et al. and Chaudhri, appear to be highly relevant. They describe mobile payment systems that incorporate many of the elements found in the independent claims of the '828 patent, including the initiation of a transaction through a simple action, the display of purchase details, and a streamlined user confirmation process.

A potential argument against anticipation would likely focus on very specific interpretations of the claim language, such as what constitutes a "single function action" to establish the communication link versus actions taken after the link is established. The '828 patent's claims tie the establishment of the communication to this initial action, which might be a point of distinction from some prior art that describes a more passive establishment of communication (e.g., simply being in proximity) followed by a user action to authorize payment.

Given the ongoing litigation involving this patent, a thorough and detailed analysis of these and other prior art references will be central to the arguments of all parties involved. The final determination of whether these references anticipate the claims of the '828 patent would be made by the courts or the USPTO in a re-examination proceeding.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates whether the independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 (the '828 patent) would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, based on the prior art references cited during prosecution. The relevant priority date for this analysis is March 31, 2014.

A PHOSITA in this technical field circa 2014 would be an engineer or computer scientist with a bachelor's degree in a relevant field and several years of experience in mobile software development, particularly concerning mobile payments, near-field communication (NFC), and user interface design for secure transactions.

The independent claims (1, 10, and 16) of the '828 patent describe a system and method where a user device:

1. Establishes a wireless link to a merchant device based on a "gesture or a single function action."
2. Receives and displays purchase data.
3. Receives a "single-interaction" from the user to confirm the payment, which serves as a security measure.
4. Retrieves and transmits the user's payment data to complete the transaction.

An invention is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 PHOSITA. This analysis requires not only that the individual elements of the claim are present in the prior art but also that there was a motivation to combine these elements to arrive at the claimed invention.

Combination 1: Ayoub et al. (US 9,734,510) in view of Chaudhri (US 9,633,293)

This combination of references would render the claims of the '828 patent obvious.

1. What Ayoub Teaches:
Ayoub describes a comprehensive mobile payment system. It teaches initiating a transaction by bringing a mobile device into proximity with a merchant's point-of-sale (POS) terminal, which constitutes a "gesture or a single function action" (Claim 1, element 1). It further discloses the mobile device receiving transaction details from the POS and displaying them to the user (Claim 1, elements 2 & 3). Finally, Ayoub teaches that the user must confirm the payment to complete the transaction (covering the general concept of elements 4 & 5).

2. What Chaudhri Teaches:
Chaudhri, assigned to Apple, focuses specifically on improving the user interface and security of the payment authorization step. It explicitly discloses using a single user interaction, such as a fingerprint scan (Touch ID), to both authenticate the user and confirm the payment (Claim 1, element 4). This single action is presented as a secure, fast, and seamless way to authorize a transaction.

3. Motivation to Combine:
Ayoub provides the foundational system for a proximity-based mobile payment. However, the user confirmation step in Ayoub is described more generally. A PHOSITA in 2014 would have been acutely aware of the market demand for payment systems that were not only functional but also exceptionally fast, user-friendly, and secure. The primary bottleneck and point of friction in such systems is the final authorization step.

Chaudhri directly addresses this known problem by teaching a single, secure, and rapid interaction (a fingerprint scan) to authorize payment. The motivation to combine these teachings is straightforward: to improve the user experience and security of the system disclosed in Ayoub by replacing its general confirmation step with the specific, superior single-interaction method taught by Chaudhri. This combination is not a result of hindsight but a predictable step in the evolution of mobile payment technology, aimed at reducing transaction time and enhancing security—two of the most significant goals in the field at the time. Therefore, combining Ayoub's system with Chaudhri's authorization method would lead directly to the invention claimed in the '828 patent.

Combination 2: Halla et al. (US 8,639,634) in view of Chaudhri (US 9,633,293)

This combination also provides a strong basis for an obviousness rejection.

1. What Halla Teaches:
Halla discloses a "digital wallet" system for conducting transactions. It teaches initiating a payment by bringing a mobile device near a merchant's reader (element 1) and describes the necessary data exchange for the transaction (elements 2, 3, and 5). Halla also requires a step for "transaction authorization" by the user, although it is not specifically limited to a single interaction.

2. What Chaudhri Teaches:
As established above, Chaudhri teaches a specific and improved method for user authorization via a single, secure interaction like a fingerprint scan.

3. Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA working to implement or improve upon the digital wallet concept described in Halla would naturally seek the most efficient and secure method for the "transaction authorization" step. A multi-step process involving PINs or passwords was a known point of user frustration and a potential security risk. Chaudhri provides an elegant solution to this very problem. The motivation to integrate Chaudhri's single-touch authorization into Halla's digital wallet framework would be to increase the competitiveness of the product by making it faster and more secure. This would be a predictable design choice to meet consumer expectations for seamless mobile experiences, rendering the resulting combination obvious.

Conclusion

The independent claims of the '828 patent appear to be vulnerable to an obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The prior art, specifically Ayoub and Halla, already established the fundamental architecture of proximity-based mobile payment systems. The primary inventive step claimed in the '828 patent appears to be the use of a "single-interaction" for secure confirmation. However, this specific feature was a key element in other contemporaneous art, such as Chaudhri, and represented a clear, market-driven trend in user interface design for mobile devices.

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to solve the well-understood problems of speed, security, and user experience in mobile payments. The combination of a known system (Ayoub or Halla) with a known improvement for a specific element of that system (Chaudhri) would have been an obvious design choice rather than an inventive leap.

Analysis of Patent Term and Application History for U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828

Based on a detailed review of the prosecution history and data associated with U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 (the '828 patent), the following information has been compiled as of May 10, 2026.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Patent Term Extension (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): A review of the patent's file history indicates no days of Patent Term Adjustment have been granted. PTA is typically awarded to compensate for delays caused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during prosecution. The absence of PTA means the patent's term is not extended beyond its standard statutory term.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension for the '828 patent. PTE is typically granted for delays in commercial marketing approval from regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is not applicable to this technology area.

Continuity and Family Data

The '828 patent is a continuation of a long chain of prior applications, claiming priority back to an application filed in 2014. This relationship is critical for determining the patent's expiration date. The direct lineage as stated in the patent data is as follows:

• This Patent (US 11,461,828): Filed January 25, 2022, as application number 17/583,486.
• Continuation of: Application No. 16/884,416 (now Patent No. 11,080,777), filed July 14, 2020.
• Continuation of: Application No. 16/279,685 (now Patent No. 10,643,266), filed February 19, 2019.
• Continuation of: Application No. 16/126,541 (now Patent No. 10,832,310), filed September 10, 2018.
• Continuation of: Application No. 15/947,395 (now Patent No. 10,152,756), filed April 6, 2018.
• Continuation of: Application No. 15/720,878 (now Patent No. 10,497,037), filed September 29, 2017.
• Continuation of: Application No. 15/263,057 (now Patent No. 9,824,408), filed September 12, 2016.
• Continuation of: Application No. 14/672,876 (now Patent No. 9,361,638), filed March 30, 2015.
• Continuation of: Application No. 14/230,864 (now Patent No. 9,430,794), filed March 31, 2014.

This chain establishes that while the '828 patent itself was filed in 2022, its claims are entitled to the much earlier priority date of March 31, 2014.

Projected Expiration Date

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

• Earliest Priority Date: March 31, 2014 (from application 14/230,864).
• Standard 20-Year Term Ends: March 31, 2034.
• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): 0 days.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): 0 days.

Therefore, the projected expiration date for U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 is March 31, 2034. This date is calculated by adding 20 years to the earliest priority filing date of March 31, 2014. Maintenance fees must be paid on schedule to keep the patent in force until this date.

Defensive Disclosure: U.S. Patent 11,461,828

Publication Date: May 10, 2026
Subject: Derivative Implementations and Obvious Extensions of Systems and Methods for Single-Gesture Wireless Transactions.
Abstract: This document discloses a series of technical variations, alternative embodiments, and cross-domain applications derived from the core principles described in U.S. Patent 11,461,828. The purpose of this disclosure is to place into the public domain a comprehensive set of foreseeable modifications and integrations, thereby rendering them obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The disclosures herein cover component substitutions, expansions of operational parameters, novel applications in disparate industries, integration with emerging technologies, and fail-safe operational modes.

---

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

1.1: Acoustic Near-Field Data Transfer for Point-of-Sale Transactions

• Enabling Description: This embodiment replaces the radio-frequency (RF) transceiver (e.g., NFC, BLE) with a pair of ultrasonic micro-transducers operating in the 40-100 kHz range. The user device's transducer is coupled with its haptic engine. The "single function action" is the physical tapping of the user device against a designated resonant surface on the merchant terminal. The tap generates a specific mechanical impulse, which is detected by an accelerometer in the terminal, triggering it to listen for an incoming ultrasonic data packet. The user's device then modulates the payment data onto an ultrasonic carrier wave. Confirmation on the user's device is signaled back via a different ultrasonic frequency. This method is immune to RF skimming and interference.

sequenceDiagram
    participant UserDevice as User Device
    participant MerchantTerminal as Merchant Terminal
    UserDevice->>MerchantTerminal: Physical Tap (Single Function Action)
    MerchantTerminal-->>UserDevice: Activate Ultrasonic Listener
    UserDevice->>MerchantTerminal: Transmit Purchase Data Request (40kHz)
    MerchantTerminal-->>UserDevice: Send Purchase Details (40kHz)
    UserDevice->>User: Display Purchase Details
    User->>UserDevice: Confirm Purchase (Single Interaction)
    UserDevice->>MerchantTerminal: Transmit Encrypted Payment Token (50kHz)
    MerchantTerminal-->>UserDevice: Acknowledge Receipt (50kHz)

1.2: Integrated Data-Over-Power via Inductive Coupling

• Enabling Description: This variation utilizes the existing hardware for wireless power transfer (e.g., Qi standard) to create a data link. The "single function action" is placing the user device onto an inductive charging pad integrated into the point-of-sale counter. The initial power handshake protocol (as defined by the Wireless Power Consortium) is extended with custom data packets. Once the link is established, the merchant terminal modulates the purchase data onto the power-carrying magnetic field by varying the load. The user device demodulates this signal. The user's "single-interaction confirmation" authorizes the device to transmit its payment token back to the terminal using a backscatter modulation technique, momentarily altering its own coil's impedance.

flowchart TD
    A[User places Device on Charging Pad] -->|Single Function Action| B(Initiate Qi Power Handshake);
    B --> C{Extended Handshake?};
    C -->|Yes| D[Modulate Purchase Data onto Power Field];
    C -->|No| E[Standard Charging Only];
    D --> F[Device Demodulates & Displays Data];
    F --> G[User Confirms via Single Interaction];
    G --> H[Device Transmits Payment Token via Backscatter Modulation];
    H --> I[Terminal Receives Token & Completes Transaction];

---

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

2.1: Hydro-Acoustic Transaction System for Subsea Environments

• Enabling Description: This system is designed for transactions between an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) and a subsea docking station. The AUV ("user device") initiates the "single function action" by physically latching with the station's docking port. The wireless link is established via hydro-acoustic modems operating between 10-20 kHz. The docking station ("merchant device") transmits data on available services (e.g., battery recharge cost, data offload fee) as the "purchase data". The AUV's mission controller, which may be remote, provides the "single-interaction confirmation" via a secure uplink, which causes the AUV to transmit a pre-funded cryptographic payment wallet address to the station to complete the transaction.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Disconnected
    Disconnected --> Connecting: AUV performs physical docking
    Connecting --> Authenticating: Acoustic modems handshake
    Authenticating --> Data_Exchange: Dock sends service data (cost, type)
    Data_Exchange --> Awaiting_Confirmation: AUV displays data to remote operator
    Awaiting_Confirmation --> Transmitting_Payment: Operator provides single-interaction approval
    Transmitting_Payment --> Confirmed: AUV sends payment token
    Confirmed --> Service_Delivery: Dock provides power/data transfer
    Service_Delivery --> Disconnected: AUV undocks
    Confirmed --> [*]

2.2: Ruggedized Infrared (IR) Data Link for Extreme Temperature Industrial Use

• Enabling Description: For use in industrial environments (e.g., foundries, cryogenic labs) where RF is unreliable and operators wear heavy protective gear. The user device is a ruggedized tablet with a high-power IR transceiver (e.g., IrDA standard on steroids). The "single function action" is pressing a large, physical, glove-friendly button on the device while aiming it at a corresponding IR port on a piece of machinery ("merchant device"). This triggers the IR link establishment. The machinery transmits diagnostic data or consumable costs ("purchase data"). The "single-interaction confirmation" is a voice command (e.g., "Confirm Purchase") authenticated by a pre-trained voiceprint model on the tablet, which then transmits an authorization code over the IR link.

graph TD
    subgraph User Device (Ruggedized Tablet)
        A[Physical Button Press] -->|Single Action| B(Activate IR Transceiver);
        B --> C(Transmit 'Request to Connect');
        E --> F{Display Data & Await Voice};
        G[Voice Input: 'Confirm'] --> H(Authenticate Voiceprint);
        H --> I[Transmit Authorization Code via IR];
    end
    subgraph Machine (Merchant Device)
        J(IR Port) --> K(Receive 'Request to Connect');
        K --> L(Establish Link & Transmit Data);
        L --> M(Receive Authorization Code);
        M --> N(Execute Action/Dispense Material);
    end
    C --> J;
    L --> E(Receive Data);
    I --> M;

---

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

3.1: Aerospace: Secure Avionics Configuration via Tablet

• Enabling Description: A flight maintenance crew member uses an authorized tablet ("user device") to update or reconfigure a module in an aircraft's avionics bay ("merchant device"). The "single function action" involves tapping the tablet on the specific Line-Replaceable Unit's (LRU) designated NFC touchpoint. This establishes a point-to-point encrypted link. The LRU transmits its current configuration and the proposed changes ("purchase data"). The technician provides a "single-interaction confirmation" using a biometric fingerprint scan on the tablet. This generates a digitally signed command packet containing the new configuration, which is transmitted to the LRU. The transaction is logged in the aircraft's maintenance log. The "payment" is the authorization and transfer of validated data.

classDiagram
    class Tablet {
      +string technicianID
      +biometricScanner
      +nfcController
      +signConfiguration(configData)
      +transmitSignedPacket()
    }
    class Avionics_LRU {
      +string partNumber
      +string currentConfig
      +nfcController
      +receiveSignedPacket(packet)
      +applyConfiguration()
      +logMaintenanceEvent()
    }
    Tablet "1" -- "1" Avionics_LRU : communicates via NFC

3.2: AgTech: Automated Resource Dispensing for Smart Farming Implements

• Enabling Description: A smart seeder ("user device") autonomously docks with a silo ("merchant device") to refill its hopper. The physical docking is the "single function action," detected by contact sensors and initiating a Wi-Fi Direct connection. The silo's control unit transmits the type of seed available and the cost per kilogram ("purchase data"). The seeder's onboard computer verifies this against its work order, and if it matches, sends an authorization request to the central farm management server. The server's automated response is the "single-interaction confirmation," which triggers the seeder to transmit a payment/inventory-deduction token to the silo. The silo then dispenses the specified amount of seed.

sequenceDiagram
    participant Seeder as Smart Seeder
    participant Silo as Dispensing Silo
    participant FarmServer as Central Mgmt. Server

    Seeder->>Silo: Physical Docking (Single Action)
    Silo-->>Seeder: Establish Wi-Fi Direct & Send Seed/Cost Data
    Seeder->>FarmServer: Request Authorization (Work Order vs. Silo Data)
    FarmServer-->>Seeder: Grant Authorization (Single Interaction Confirmation)
    Seeder->>Silo: Transmit Payment/Inventory Token
    Silo->>Seeder: Dispense Seed
    Silo->>FarmServer: Log Transaction

3.3: Consumer Electronics: Tap-to-Provision Secure IoT Device

• Enabling Description: A user onboards a new smart camera ("merchant device") to their home network using their smartphone ("user device"). The "single function action" is tapping the phone against an NFC logo on the camera. The camera uses the energy from the NFC field to power up its NFC chip and transmit its unique device ID and a request for network credentials ("purchase data"). The phone's OS prompts the user "Allow [Camera XYZ] to join your Wi-Fi network?". The user's Face ID scan serves as the "single-interaction confirmation," which authorizes the phone to securely transmit the encrypted SSID, password, and a unique device token ("payment data") to the camera via the NFC link.

flowchart LR
    A[User Taps Phone to Camera] -- Single Function Action --> B(NFC Handshake);
    B -- Device ID & Credential Request --> C[Phone OS Prompt];
    C -- "Allow Device to Join Network?" --> D(User Authenticates with Face ID);
    D -- Single Interaction --> E[Phone Encrypts Wi-Fi Credentials];
    E -- Transmit Secure Packet --> F(Camera Receives & Decrypts);
    F --> G[Camera Joins Wi-Fi Network];

---

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

4.1: AI-Powered Predictive Transaction Pre-Staging

• Enabling Description: A user's smartphone runs a federated learning model that analyzes location, time of day, calendar entries, and purchase history. Upon entering a geofenced area of a frequent merchant (e.g., a coffee shop), the AI predicts the user's likely order (e.g., "Large black coffee") and pre-stages a transaction with the merchant's cloud-based POS system via an API. The "purchase data" is already loaded. The user's "single function action" of tapping their phone to the terminal instantly brings up the predicted order on both the terminal's and the phone's screens. The user's "single-interaction confirmation" (e.g., a tap) simply confirms the pre-staged order, completing the transaction in milliseconds. The AI also selects the payment method with the optimal rewards or lowest foreign transaction fee in real-time.

sequenceDiagram
    participant UserAI as On-Device AI
    participant MerchantCloud as Merchant Cloud POS
    participant UserDevice as User Device
    participant MerchantTerminal as Merchant Terminal

    UserAI->>MerchantCloud: User entered geofence. Pre-stage predicted order.
    MerchantCloud-->>UserAI: Order staged with ID: 123
    UserDevice->>MerchantTerminal: NFC Tap (Single Function Action)
    MerchantTerminal->>MerchantCloud: NFC payload received, retrieve order 123.
    MerchantCloud-->>MerchantTerminal: Display: Large black coffee.
    MerchantCloud-->>UserDevice: Display: Large black coffee.
    UserDevice->>MerchantTerminal: User Confirmation (Single Interaction)
    MerchantTerminal->>MerchantCloud: Finalize payment for order 123.

4.2: Blockchain-Verified Transaction with NFT Warranty Issuance

• Enabling Description: This system enhances high-value retail transactions. The transaction flow proceeds as normal up to the final step. Upon "single-interaction confirmation" from the user, the user device constructs a transaction payload including merchant ID, item serial number, price, and timestamp. This payload is signed with the user's private key stored in the secure element. Instead of transmitting card details, this signed payload is submitted as a transaction to a smart contract on a public blockchain (e.g., Ethereum). The smart contract validates the transaction and, upon successful payment settlement (e.g., via a stablecoin), automatically mints a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) representing the item's warranty and proof of ownership, transferring it to the user's blockchain wallet address.

graph TD
    A[Start Transaction] --> B(NFC Tap);
    B --> C(Merchant sends Item Data);
    C --> D(User confirms w/ Biometrics);
    D --> E[Device constructs & signs payload<br/>{item_id, serial, price, ts}];
    E --> F{Blockchain Smart Contract};
    F --> G[Verifies & Processes Payment];
    G --> H[Mints & Transfers Ownership/Warranty NFT to User Wallet];
    G --> I[Sends Confirmation to Merchant];
    I --> J[Transaction Complete];

---

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

5.1: Offline Transaction via Signed Cryptographic Promissory Token

• Enabling Description: In a network-denied environment (e.g., subway, remote area), the system shifts to an offline, store-and-forward mode. The initial handshake and data exchange via NFC or BLE occur as usual. When the user provides the "single-interaction confirmation," the user device—detecting no internet connectivity—generates a time-stamped, single-use cryptographic token. This token contains the merchant ID, transaction amount, and is digitally signed by a key within the device's secure element, acting as a promissory note. The merchant terminal stores this token. Later, when the terminal regains connectivity, it submits the collected batch of signed tokens to a payment processor for settlement. This allows commerce to continue without a live network connection.

stateDiagram-v2
    state "Offline Mode" as Offline {
        [*] --> Handshake: User Taps Terminal
        Handshake --> Data_Exchange: Purchase details sent to device
        Data_Exchange --> Awaiting_Confirmation: User prompted to confirm
        Awaiting_Confirmation --> Token_Generated: User confirms, device signs offline token
        Token_Generated --> Transaction_Complete: Token stored on Merchant & User devices
        Transaction_Complete --> [*]
    }
    state "Online Mode" as Online {
        [*] --> Batch_Upload: Terminal connects to network
        Batch_Upload --> Settlement: Processor validates & settles signed tokens
        Settlement --> [*]
    }

5.2: Low-Power Passive NFC Mode for Transit/Vending

• Enabling Description: The user device is in a deep power-save mode or has a depleted battery. Only the NFC controller, which can be powered parasitically by an NFC reader's field, remains active. This mode is pre-configured by the user for "Express Transit" or low-value payments. The "single function action" is tapping the device to the reader. The reader provides power and sends a payment request. Because this mode is pre-authorized, the "single-interaction confirmation" is bypassed. The NFC controller, operating without the main CPU, accesses a dedicated, pre-funded payment token from the secure element and transmits it to the reader. This allows for critical, low-value payments even when the device is otherwise non-functional.

flowchart TD
    subgraph Device (Low Power)
        A(NFC Controller) -- Powered by --> B[Reader's RF Field];
        A --> C(Secure Element);
        C -- Pre-funded Token --> A;
    end
    subgraph Reader (POS/Turnstile)
        B -- Sends Payment Request --> A;
        A -- Transmits Token --> B;
        B --> D[Process Payment];
    end

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

1. Combination with W3C Web Payments & FIDO2/WebAuthn: A user initiates a transaction by scanning a QR code on a merchant's web-based POS terminal, which triggers the W3C Web Payments API in the mobile browser. The browser then calls the FIDO2/WebAuthn API, allowing the user to provide a "single-interaction" biometric confirmation to authorize the payment. The combination of these open standards for in-browser payment initiation and cryptographic authentication renders a web-based implementation of the '828 patent's flow obvious.

2. Combination with Bluetooth GATT & GPG: A transaction is conducted over Bluetooth Low Energy using a standardized Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) for point-of-sale communication. After the "single function action" of pairing, the merchant device's GATT service exposes its public GPG key as a readable characteristic. The user's "single-interaction confirmation" triggers the client device to fetch this key, encrypt the payment data using the well-established open-source GPG protocol, and write it to a secure characteristic on the server, making the specific method of securing the BLE link obvious.

3. Combination with ISO/IEC 18013-5 (mDL) & NFC: The '828 patent's user flow is applied to identity verification. A user taps their phone, containing a mobile Driver's License (mDL), to a merchant's NFC reader to prove their age. The reader requests only the "is_over_21" data element as defined by the ISO/IEC 18013-5 open standard. The mDL application prompts the user for a "single-interaction" biometric confirmation to release this single piece of information. The combination of the patent's interaction flow with this public identity standard for selective data disclosure is a direct and obvious application.