Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on August 18, 2025.
Of prior claims 1-20: claims 7 and 14 were canceled; claims 21-22 were added; claims 1, 8 and 16 were amended; claims 1, 8 and 16 are independent claims. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are pending, and have been examined in this application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on August 18, 2025, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as follows.
Applicant’s arguments: “the combination of Dominguez, Jogand, and Schiavone fails to send a second message comprising N pieces of verification information that are a part of the M pieces of verification information and comprising at least one of address information or time information when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants, and especially in view of inclusion of the Hatanaka reference in the rejection. Dominquez teaches “send a second message comprising N pieces of verification information that are a part of the M pieces of verification information” (Dominguez para. [0049], “identity of the consumer is confirmed” and “notice of the consumer's authentication”; Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0082], “verifies the authentication password”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”, “In some embodiments, the receipt is a copy of the Payment Authentication Response (PARes) message, or a message having at least some of the information fields copied from the PARes message; Dominguez claim 4, “said verification of enrollment response message indicates if said account number is contained within said list of enrolled account holders; and including an extension field on said verification of enrollment response message that includes a chain of trusted party digital certificates”).
Dominguez further teaches “comprising at least one of address information “(Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0093], “case where a successful match occurs, the ACS sets the Status of PAN Enrollment to "Y," creates a single use proxy PAN, which ACS 114 will internally associate with the PAN, and populates the URL field(s) in the VEReq message”; Dominguez para. [0199], “the VERes message can be extended so that the Visa directory server can specify the use of a proxy server between the MPI and ACS during the PAReq/Res exchange. In one embodiment, this extension field is called the paReqURL field. This field specifies the URL of a proxy server to which the form containing the PAReq is to be posted. As will be discussed below, a proxy server can be used to permit the needed exchange of data while maintaining the security provided by system firewalls”) or time information (Dominguez para. [0199], “PAReq can also be extended to indicate the date and time when the MPI will allow the transaction to time out of an account authentication process if no PARes has been received from the ACS. The date and time should be specified using Greenwich Mean Time. An optional extension field paReqExp can be used for this purpose.”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, and ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”).
Finally, while Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone do not disclose, Hatanaka does disclose an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages” (Hatanaka para. [0208], “the memory 252 stores a threshold value or the like for determining the distribution of the communication load. The controller 251 determines a communication device to execute communication processing from a plurality of communication devices according to a communication load based on setting information such as a threshold value stored in the memory 252”; Hatanaka para. [0214], “executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value, and in a distributed manner by a plurality of communication devices when the processing load is equal to or greater than the first threshold value”).
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on August 18, 2025, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
However, upon further consideration of the newly-added features/limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hatanaka.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez et al. (“Dominguez”; US20030200184A1) in view of Jogand et al. (“Jogand”; US20100332586A1), Schiavone et al. (“Schiavone”; US20080016172A1) and further in view of Hatanaka (“Hatanaka”; US20210400026A1).
Per claim 1, Dominguez discloses a first apparatus (Dominguez FIG. 14, “ACS”; Dominguez para. [0096], “issuer's ACS server”), comprising:
one or more processors (Dominguez para. [0226], “Processor(s) 922 (also referred to as central processing units, or CPUs)”); and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store program instructions (Dominguez [para. [0226], “A fixed disk 926 is also coupled bi-directionally to CPU 922; it provides additional data storage capacity and may also include any of the computer-readable media described below. Fixed disk 926 may be used to store programs”) that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first apparatus to be configured to:
receive, from a second apparatus (Dominguez FIG. 14, “MPI”; Dominguez para. [0187], “MPI server”), a first message (Dominguez FIG. 14, “VEReq”; Dominguez para. [0112], “invokes the Merchant Server Plug-in (MPI) 134 to format a Verify Enrollment Request (VEReq) message”), wherein the first message requests M pieces of verification information from the first apparatus (Dominguez Abstract, “verify a cardholder's identity”, “determine if a cardholder is enrolled in the payment authentication service”, “verifying the password”; Dominguez para. [0004], “verifying a cardholder's ownership of an account”; Dominguez para. [0008], “verify an account holder's identity”; Dominguez para. [0051], “if a cardholder being enrolled has an active card account”; Dominguez para. [0077], “verification process to determine whether the cardholder's specific account is registered with the account authentication system”; Domingues para. [0085], “a flag indicating if the cardholder was successfully authenticated, account information, digital signatures, a cardholder verification value 2, card authentication verification value (CAVV), an offline PIN authenticated by chip card Europay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) cryptogram, and the necessary fields to provide the merchant with guaranteed payment”; Dominguez para. [0191], “to learn whether authentication is available from an ACS for a specific card number and through what channel authentication will take place”), wherein the M pieces of verification information are M anonymous certificates (Dominguez para. [0105], “The channel between the merchant and the directory server, and between the directory server and the ACS server should be secured through a service organization-issued SSL encryption certificate in order to protect the PAN data contained in the VEReq and VERes messages and the ACS URL address contained in the VERes message.”; Dominguez para. [0187], “the ACS may maintain a cache of certificates for use in verifying the merchant server certificates. This would normally contain a set of commonly used commercial root certificates (just as a browser does). … If the ACS uses such a cache, then it will need to have a method of maintaining and updating the cache.”; Dominguez para. [0145], “digital certificate can be placed in the extension field of the VERes message. In one embodiment, a specific element of the digital signature is sent through the VERes--the KeyInfo element. The KeyInfo element of the digital signature contains the Issuer signing certificate chain”; Further, it is noted that Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in specification paragraph [0004] stating “issues a plurality of certificates to the in-vehicle apparatus, for the in-vehicle apparatus to randomly select and use”: as “an anonymous certificate) shows that practice of this limitation was known in the art), and wherein M is a positive integer ([NOTE: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice as to which “M pieces” would actually be used in any implementation, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific “M pieces”, solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of “M pieces; further, given that “M” is broadly defined within the claim as “wherein M is a positive integer”, “M” can simply be taken as one (1).]);
send, to the second apparatus in response to the first message, a second message comprising N pieces of verification information that are a part of the M pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0049], “identity of the consumer is confirmed” and “notice of the consumer's authentication”; Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0082], “verifies the authentication password”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”, “In some embodiments, the receipt is a copy of the Payment Authentication Response (PARes) message, or a message having at least some of the information fields copied from the PARes message; Dominguez claim 4, “said verification of enrollment response message indicates if said account number is contained within said list of enrolled account holders; and including an extension field on said verification of enrollment response message that includes a chain of trusted party digital certificates”) and comprising at least one of address information (Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0093], “case where a successful match occurs, the ACS sets the Status of PAN Enrollment to "Y," creates a single use proxy PAN, which ACS 114 will internally associate with the PAN, and populates the URL field(s) in the VEReq message”; Dominguez para. [0199], “the VERes message can be extended so that the Visa directory server can specify the use of a proxy server between the MPI and ACS during the PAReq/Res exchange. In one embodiment, this extension field is called the paReqURL field. This field specifies the URL of a proxy server to which the form containing the PAReq is to be posted. As will be discussed below, a proxy server can be used to permit the needed exchange of data while maintaining the security provided by system firewalls”) or time information (Dominguez para. [0199], “PAReq can also be extended to indicate the date and time when the MPI will allow the transaction to time out of an account authentication process if no PARes has been received from the ACS. The date and time should be specified using Greenwich Mean Time. An optional extension field paReqExp can be used for this purpose.”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”)… , wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (Dominguez para. [0086], “ACS 114 can support multiple users”; [NOTE: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice as to which “N pieces” would actually be used in any implementation, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific “N pieces”, solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of “N pieces”; further, given that “N” is broadly defined within the claim as “wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 1”, “N” can simply be taken as one (1); finally, it is noted that Applicant’s specification paragraph [0076] states, “The N pieces of verification information may be all of the M pieces of verification information, or may be a part of the M pieces of verification information.”.]); and
wherein the address information indicates an address for downloading (M-N) pieces of verification information included in the M pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0203], “MPI establishes a secure (HTTPS) connection to the appropriate URL. If provided in the VERes, the paReqURL Extension field should be used”; Dominguez Claim 37, “wherein said verification of enrollment response message includes an extension field that specifies the URL of said proxy server”) and other than the N pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0097], “other items such as: a Issuer's logo, a service organization mark or brand logo, merchant name, merchant location (URL),”).
Dominguez does not disclose to send, to the second apparatus, “time information”, “wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information”.
However, in an analogous art, Jogand teaches to send, to the second apparatus, time information (Jogand para. [0049], “The scheduler 386 may schedule retrieval of the predicted content for a specified time or date, such as during a period of low network usage. At the scheduled time, the scheduler 386 may initiate retrieval of the data from the Internet data source 314 via the data acquisition module 384. The retrieved data may be cached at the data storage device 304 and made accessible to the user immediately or after an embargo period.”);
wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information (Jogand para. [0049], “The scheduler 386 may schedule retrieval of the predicted content for a specified time or date, such as during a period of low network usage. At the scheduled time, the scheduler 386 may initiate retrieval of the data from the Internet data source 314 via the data acquisition module 384. The retrieved data may be cached at the data storage device 304 and made accessible to the user immediately or after an embargo period.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dominguez to include, as taught by Jogand, to incorporate an arrangement to send, to the second apparatus, “time information”, “wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information”. Motivation for modifying would have been to time large data transfers to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
The Dominguez/Jogand combination does not disclose an arrangement wherein the first message comprises a first identifier that indicates a priority for receiving the M pieces of verification information.
However, in an analogous art, Schiavone discloses an arrangement wherein the first message comprises a first identifier that indicates a priority for receiving the M pieces of verification information ( Schiavone Abstract, “An incoming message either carries priority information, or is assigned priority information based on a shared characteristic with other messages. The priority information is used to determine how and/or when to deliver the message”; Schiavone original claim 6, “controlling allocation of network connections for delivery of some network communications to cause other network communications having priority levels higher than the particular network communication to be delivered before delivery of the particular network communication”).
Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone fail to disclose an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages”.
However, in an analogous art, Hatanaka discloses an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages” (Hatanaka para. [0208], “the memory 252 stores a threshold value or the like for determining the distribution of the communication load. The controller 251 determines a communication device to execute communication processing from a plurality of communication devices according to a communication load based on setting information such as a threshold value stored in the memory 252”; Hatanaka para. [0214], “executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value, and in a distributed manner by a plurality of communication devices when the processing load is equal to or greater than the first threshold value”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone combination to include, as taught by Hatanaka, to incorporate an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages”. Motivation for modifying would have been to suppress wasteful power consumption (Hatanaka para [0219], [0228]); prevent occurrence of data delay {Hatanaka para. [0222], [0224], [0228]).
Per claim 2, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the first apparatus of claim 1. Jogand further discloses an arrangement wherein the program instructions that when executed by the one or more processors further cause the first apparatus to be configured to determine N based on the quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses (Jogand para. [0019], “scheduling may take into account various parameters, such as an availability of a remote server or content provider or an availability of the network (such as an off-peak traffic period)”), wherein each of the request messages requests verification information from the first apparatus, wherein the multiple apparatuses include the second apparatus, and wherein the multiple request messages include the first message (Jogand para. [0031], “the data storage device 202 may function as a personal proxy cache device that is usable with multiple devices”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as further taught by Jogand, to incorporate an arrangement wherein the program instructions further cause the first apparatus to be configured to determine N based on a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses, wherein each of the request messages requests verification information from the first apparatus, wherein the multiple apparatuses include the second apparatus, and wherein the multiple request messages include the first message. Motivation for modifying would have been to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Per claim 3, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the first apparatus of claim 2. Hatanaka further teaches an arrangement wherein the program instructions that when executed by the one or more processors further cause the first apparatus to be configured to:
determine N is equal to M when the quantity of multiple request messages is less than a first threshold (Hatanaka para. [0214], “controller 212 executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value”);
determine N is less than M when the quantity of multiple request messages is greater than or equal to a first threshold (Hatanaka para. [0214], “controller 212 executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value, and in a distributed manner by a plurality of communication devices when the processing load is equal to or greater than the first threshold value”); or
determine N is equal to 0 when the quantity of multiple request messages is greater than or equal to a second threshold.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Dominguez/Jogand/-Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as further taught by Jogand, an arrangement to send, to the second apparatus, “time information”, “wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information”.. Motivation for modifying would have been to time large data transfers to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Per claim 4, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the first apparatus of claim 1. Jogand further discloses an arrangement wherein the priority of the first message is higher than a first priority (Jogand para. [0028], “the scheduler 242 may schedule data retrieval at predetermined intervals or at predetermined times, which may be based on the user's subscription with a wireless service provider providing access to the public network 206”; Jogand para. [0034], “Content retrieval may be scheduled for off-peak times or in accordance with other quality of service or network management criteria”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to further include, as taught by Jogand, an arrangement wherein the first message comprises a first identifier, and wherein the first identifier indicates a priority of the first message is higher than a first priority. Motivation for modifying would have been to prioritize transfers to reduce an impact on prioritized clients using a network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Per claim 5, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the first apparatus of claim 4. Hatanaka further teaches an arrangement wherein N is equal to M (Hatanaka para. [0214], “controller 212 executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Dominguez/Jogand/-Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as further taught by Hatanaka, an arrangement wherein N is equal to M. Motivation for modifying would have been to minimize to one data transfer whenever possible to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Per claim 6, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the first apparatus of claim 4. Hatanaka further teaches an arrangement wherein the program instructions that when executed by the one or more processors further cause the first apparatus to be configured to:
determine N is equal to M when the first identifier is consistent with an identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information (Hatanaka para. [0102], “configured to determine whether or not to permit communication with the communication destination on the basis of a transmission destination list indicating information of communication equipment with which the client device 10 is permitted to perform communication”; Hatanaka para. [0102], “permits communication with the communication destination when the URL of the communication destination is a URL registered in the transmission destination list”); or
determine N is less than M when the first identifier is inconsistent with the identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information (Hatanaka para. [0102], “does not permit communication when the URL of the communication destination is not registered in the transmission destination list”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Dominguez/Jogand/-Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as taught by Hatanaka, an arrangement wherein the program instructions that when executed by the one or more processors further cause the first apparatus to determine N is equal to M when the first identifier is consistent with an identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information; or determine N is less than M when the first identifier is inconsistent with the identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information. Motivation for modifying would have been to select to a full or minimized data transfer whenever possible to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Per claim 8, Dominguez discloses a second apparatus (Dominguez FIG. 14, “MPI”; Dominguez para. [0187], “MPI server”) comprising:
one or more processors (Dominguez para. [0226], “Processor(s) 922 (also referred to as central processing units, or CPUs)”); and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store program instructions (Dominguez [para. [0226], “A fixed disk 926 is also coupled bi-directionally to CPU 922; it provides additional data storage capacity and may also include any of the computer-readable media described below. Fixed disk 926 may be used to store programs”) that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the second apparatus to be configured to:
send, to a first apparatus (Dominguez FIG. 14, “ACS”; Dominguez para. [0096], “issuer's ACS server”), a first message (Dominguez FIG. 14, “VEReq”; Dominguez para. [0112], “invokes the Merchant Server Plug-in (MPI) 134 to format a Verify Enrollment Request (VEReq) message”) requesting M pieces of verification information, wherein the M pieces of verification information are M anonymous certificates (Dominguez para. [0105], “The channel between the merchant and the directory server, and between the directory server and the ACS server should be secured through a service organization-issued SSL encryption certificate in order to protect the PAN data contained in the VEReq and VERes messages and the ACS URL address contained in the VERes message.”; Dominguez para. [0187], “the ACS may maintain a cache of certificates for use in verifying the merchant server certificates. This would normally contain a set of commonly used commercial root certificates (just as a browser does). … If the ACS uses such a cache, then it will need to have a method of maintaining and updating the cache.”; Dominguez para. [0145], “digital certificate can be placed in the extension field of the VERes message. In one embodiment, a specific element of the digital signature is sent through the VERes--the KeyInfo element. The KeyInfo element of the digital signature contains the Issuer signing certificate chain”; Further, it is noted that Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in specification paragraph [0004] stating “issues a plu4rality of certificates to the in-vehicle apparatus, for the in-vehicle apparatus to randomly select and use”: as “an anonymous certificate) shows that practice of this limitation was known in the art), wherein each of the M pieces of verification information is for signing a message before the second apparatus sends the first message, and wherein M is a positive integer (Dominguez Abstract, “verify a cardholder's identity”, “determine if a cardholder is enrolled in the payment authentication service”, “verifying the password”; Dominguez para. [0004], “verifying a cardholder's ownership of an account”; Dominguez para. [0008], “verify an account holder's identity”; Dominguez para. [0051], “if a cardholder being enrolled has an active card account”; Dominguez para. [0077], “verification process to determine whether the cardholder's specific account is registered with the account authentication system”; Domingues para. [0085], “a flag indicating if the cardholder was successfully authenticated, account information, digital signatures, a cardholder verification value 2, card authentication verification value (CAVV), an offline PIN authenticated by chip card Europay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) cryptogram, and the necessary fields to provide the merchant with guaranteed payment”; Dominguez para. [0191], “to learn whether authentication is available from an ACS for a specific card number and through what channel authentication will take place”), and wherein M is a positive integer ([NOTE: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice as to which “M pieces” would actually be used in any implementation, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific “M pieces”, solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of “M pieces. ; further, given that “M” is broadly defined within the claim as “wherein M is a positive integer”, “M” can simply be taken as one (1)]);
receive, from the first apparatus in response to the first message, a second message comprising N pieces of verification information that are part of the M pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0049], “identity of the consumer is confirmed” and “notice of the consumer's authentication”; Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0082], “verifies the authentication password”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”, “In some embodiments, the receipt is a copy of the Payment Authentication Response (PARes) message, or a message having at least some of the information fields copied from the PARes message; Dominguez claim 4, “said verification of enrollment response message indicates if said account number is contained within said list of enrolled account holders; and including an extension field on said verification of enrollment response message that includes a chain of trusted party digital certificates”) and comprising at least one of address information (Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0093], “case where a successful match occurs, the ACS sets the Status of PAN Enrollment to "Y," creates a single use proxy PAN, which ACS 114 will internally associate with the PAN, and populates the URL field(s) in the VEReq message”; Dominguez para. [0199], “the VERes message can be extended so that the Visa directory server can specify the use of a proxy server between the MPI and ACS during the PAReq/Res exchange. In one embodiment, this extension field is called the paReqURL field. This field specifies the URL of a proxy server to which the form containing the PAReq is to be posted. As will be discussed below, a proxy server can be used to permit the needed exchange of data while maintaining the security provided by system firewalls”) or time information (Dominguez para. [0199], “PAReq can also be extended to indicate the date and time when the MPI will allow the transaction to time out of an account authentication process if no PARes has been received from the ACS. The date and time should be specified using Greenwich Mean Time. An optional extension field paReqExp can be used for this purpose.”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”)… , wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (Dominguez para. [0086], “ACS 114 can support multiple users”; [NOTE: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice as to which “N pieces” would actually be used in any implementation, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific “N pieces”, solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of “N pieces”; further, given that “N” is broadly defined within the claim as “wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 1”, “N” can simply be taken as one (1) or even zero (0); finally, it is noted that Applicant’s specification paragraph [0076] states, “The N pieces of verification information may be all of the M pieces of verification information, or may be a part of the M pieces of verification information.”.]); and
wherein the address information indicates an address for downloading (M-N) pieces of verification information included in the M pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0203], “MPI establishes a secure (HTTPS) connection to the appropriate URL. If provided in the VERes, the paReqURL Extension field should be used”; Dominguez Claim 37, “wherein said verification of enrollment response message includes an extension field that specifies the URL of said proxy server”) and other than the N pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0097], “other items such as: a Issuer's logo, a service organization mark or brand logo, merchant name, merchant location (URL),”);
Dominguez does not disclose to receive, from the first apparatus, “time information”, “wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information”.
However, in an analogous art, Jogand teaches to send, to the second apparatus, time information (Jogand para. [0049], “The scheduler 386 may schedule retrieval of the predicted content for a specified time or date, such as during a period of low network usage. At the scheduled time, the scheduler 386 may initiate retrieval of the data from the Internet data source 314 via the data acquisition module 384. The retrieved data may be cached at the data storage device 304 and made accessible to the user immediately or after an embargo period.”);
wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information (Jogand para. [0049], “The scheduler 386 may schedule retrieval of the predicted content for a specified time or date, such as during a period of low network usage. At the scheduled time, the scheduler 386 may initiate retrieval of the data from the Internet data source 314 via the data acquisition module 384. The retrieved data may be cached at the data storage device 304 and made accessible to the user immediately or after an embargo period.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dominguez to include, as taught by Jogand, to incorporate an arrangement to send, to the second apparatus, “time information”, “wherein the time information indicates a time for obtaining the (M-N) pieces of verification information”.. Motivation for modifying would have been to time large data transfers to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
The Dominguez/Jogand combination does not disclose an arrangement wherein the first message comprises a first identifier that indicates a priority for receiving the M pieces of verification information.
However, in an analogous art, Schiavone discloses an arrangement wherein the first message comprises a first identifier that indicates a priority for receiving the M pieces of verification information (Schiavone Abstract, “An incoming message either carries priority information, or is assigned priority information based on a shared characteristic with other messages. The priority information is used to determine how and/or when to deliver the message”; Schiavone original claim 6, “controlling allocation of network connections for delivery of some network communications to cause other network communications having priority levels higher than the particular network communication to be delivered before delivery of the particular network communication”).
Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone fail to disclose an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages”.
However, in an analogous art, Hatanaka discloses an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages” (Hatanaka para. [0208], “the memory 252 stores a threshold value or the like for determining the distribution of the communication load. The controller 251 determines a communication device to execute communication processing from a plurality of communication devices according to a communication load based on setting information such as a threshold value stored in the memory 252”; Hatanaka para. [0214], “executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value, and in a distributed manner by a plurality of communication devices when the processing load is equal to or greater than the first threshold value”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone combination to include, as taught by Hatanaka, to incorporate an arrangement which effects action “when a quantity of multiple request messages from multiple apparatuses that request verification information and that are received by the first apparatus is greater than a threshold number of request messages”. Motivation for modifying would have been to suppress wasteful power consumption (Hatanaka para [0219], [0228]); prevent occurrence of data delay {Hatanaka para. [0222], [0224], [0228]).
Per claim 9, such second apparatus claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 2.
Per claim 10, such second apparatus claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 3.
Per claim 11, such second apparatus claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 4.
Per claim 12, such second apparatus claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 5.
Per claim 13, such second apparatus claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 6.
Per claim 15, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the first apparatus of claim 8. Hatanaka further teaches an arrangement wherein program instructions that when executed by the processor further cause the second apparatus to be configured to:
send, to a third apparatus according to at least one of the address information of the time information, a third message requesting to download the (M-N) pieces of verification information (Hatanaka para. [0224], “when the processing load is equal to or greater than the second threshold value, the distribution controller 212 can cause the three communication devices (the maximum number of communication devices) to execute the processing in a distributed manner”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Dominguez/Jogand/-Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as further taught by Hatanaka, an arrangement configured to send, to a third apparatus according to at least one of the address information of the time information, a third message requesting to download the (M-N) pieces of verification information. Motivation for modifying would have been to select to include apparatuses beyond two to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Dominguez further teaches an arrangement to receive, from the third apparatus in response to the third message, the (M-N) pieces of verification information (Dominguez para. [0049], “identity of the consumer is confirmed” and “notice of the consumer's authentication”; Dominguez para. [0079], “ACS via the directory server returns its URL Internet address to the merchant plug-in”; Dominguez para. [0082], “verifies the authentication password”; Dominguez para. [0083], “ACS also passes to the merchant the digitally signed receipt and the determination as to whether the cardholder has been authenticated”, ”receipt will contain the merchant name, card account number, payment amount, and the payment date”, “In some embodiments, the receipt is a copy of the Payment Authentication Response (PARes) message, or a message having at least some of the information fields copied from the PARes message), wherein N is an integer ([NOTE: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice as to which “N pieces” would actually be used in any implementation, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific “N pieces”, solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of “N pieces”.]).
Per claim 16, such method claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 8.
Per claim 17, such method claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 9. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 9.
Per claim 18, such method claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 10. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 10.
Per claim 19, such method claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 11. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 11.
Per claim 20, such method claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 15. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 15.
Per claim 21, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the method of claim 16. Hatanaka further discloses an arrangement wherein N is equal to M (Hatanaka para. [0214], “controller 212 executes the communication processing by one communication device when the processing load in the entire communication control device 201 is less than the first threshold value”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Dominguez/Jogand/-Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as further taught by Hatanaka, an arrangement wherein N is equal to M. Motivation for modifying would have been to suppress wasteful power consumption (Hatanaka para [0219], [0228]); prevent occurrence of data delay {Hatanaka para. [0222], [0224], [0228]).
Per claim 22, the Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination discloses the method of claim 16. The Dominguez/Jogand/Schiavone/Hatanaka combination does not disclose an arrangement
wherein N is equal to M when the first identifier is consistent with an identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information (Hatanaka para. [0102], “configured to determine whether or not to permit communication with the communication destination on the basis of a transmission destination list indicating information of communication equipment with which the client device 10 is permitted to perform communication”; Hatanaka para. [0102], “permits communication with the communication destination when the URL of the communication destination is a URL registered in the transmission destination list”); or
N is less than M when the first identifier is inconsistent with the identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information (Hatanaka para. [0102], “does not permit communication when the URL of the communication destination is not registered in the transmission destination list”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Dominguez/Jogand/-Schiavone/Hatanaka combination to include, as taught by Hatanaka, an arrangement wherein N is equal to M when the first identifier is consistent with an identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information; or determine N is less than M when the first identifier is inconsistent with the identifier corresponding to the M pieces of verification information. Motivation for modifying would have been to select to a full or minimized data transfer whenever possible to reduce an impact on voice traffic over a wireless network, which may enable reduced cost Internet data access services or subscriptions to individuals or businesses (Jogand para. [0021]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul J Skwierawski whose telephone number is (571)272-2642. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00am-3:30pm weekdays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisory primary examiner (SPE) Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Paul Skwierawski/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights